Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Moran v. A. Ola

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 7, 2017

NICOLAS MORAN, Plaintiff,
v.
A. OLA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF, SUBJECTING PLAINTIFF TO STRIKE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(G) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE [ECF NO. 20]

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 6.)

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs third amended complaint, filed August 9, 2017. (ECF No. 20.)

         I.

         SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that “fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiffs rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiffs claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs original complaint was filed on September 24, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) The Court ruled on certain motions, and the originally-assigned magistrate judge then retired from the bench in August 2015. (ECF No. 7.) The matter was then reassigned to the undersigned.

         On February 16, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiffs complaint and dismissed it for the failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief could be granted, with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 9.) Following an extension of time, on April 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.)

         On October 19, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiffs first amended complaint and dismissed it for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, with leave to amend only his claim of false charges of hoarding medication. (ECF No. 13.) Following the partial granting of an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on December 8, 2016. (ECF No. 16.)

         On May 31, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint and dismissed it for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, with one final grant of leave to amend only his claim of a violation of his due process rights related to false charges of hoarding medication. (ECF No. 17.) Following the grant of an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.