United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND (ECF NO. 11)
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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
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.
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. §
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.
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.
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.
Original Complaint and Screening Order
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 ...