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.

Winston v. Martinez

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 5, 2017

MYOHO WINSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
I. MARTINEZ, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 11)

          Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 6, 2017. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 9). No other parties have appeared.

         On August 23, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) The amended complaint is now before the Court for screening.

         I. Screening Requirement

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. Pleading Standard

         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)), and courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, ” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 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, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, however he complains of acts that occurred at the California State Prison, Corcoran in Corcoran, California (“CSP-COR”). Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant I. Martinez, a correctional officer at CSP-COR.

         A. Original Complaint and Screening Order

         In the first screening Order, the Court summarized Plaintiff's allegations as follows:

On May 18, 2016, he filed a grievance about a television having been confiscated from his cell on May 3, 2016. During a July 11, 2016, hearing on the grievance Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by filing a false Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) accusing Plaintiff of having stolen the television from another inmate. Defendant did so to prevent Plaintiff from filing a ...

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.