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.

Heredia v. CCI

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 6, 2017

AARON AUGUSTINE HEREDIA, Plaintiff,
v.
CCI, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (DOC. 23) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO CLOSE CASE

          JENNIFER L. THURSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment for failure to protect him from dangerous conditions. Despite twice receiving the required pleading and legal standards and dismissal of Plaintiff's Original and First Amended Complaint for his failure to link any of the named defendants to his factual allegations, Plaintiff failed to link any individual state actors to any of his factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Further, Plaintiff now fails to state any specific factual allegations regarding any particular incident to show that he was housed under dangerous conditions. Given that this is his third effort, it appears that Plaintiff is unable to state a cognizable claim and to link any state actors to his allegations. Because of this, the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

         ANALYSIS

         A. 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, malicious, 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

         B. Summary of the Second Amended Complaint

         Plaintiff complains of an incident that occurred at California Correctional Institute (“CCI”) in Tehachapi, California and now names the following defendants: CCI Warden Kim Holland; FC Chariperson J. Jones; CCII T. Nipper; CCI(A) A. Tabias; Lt. Inmate Assessment, K. Large; and CSR A. Barkley.

         Plaintiff alleges that, due to an administration error, he was living on a level 3 yard, but was supposed to be on a level 2 yard __ which put his life in danger. After an incident, Plaintiff was shot, sprayed, hit, stripped, and denied “medical care for over five hours on more than one occasion.”

         Plaintiff fails both to link any of the individuals named as defendants to his factual allegations and does not even state factual allegations to show that he was attacked, let alone stated any cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the SAC. Since Plaintiff has twice been given opportunity to amend his pleading to correct deficiencies, it appears that further leave to amend would be futile and need not be extended. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012). This action is thus DISMISSED with prejudice.

         C. Pleading Requirements

         1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

         “Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions, ” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.

         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), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.”' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are accepted as true, but ...


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.