United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No.1) is before
the Court for screening.
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, ” or 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)).
Plaintiffs must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere
possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). To state a claim under
section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated and (2) that the alleged violation
was committed by a person acting under the color of state
law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988);
Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th
section 1983 the 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 incarcerated at California Medical Facility in Vacaville,
California. He appears to complain of acts that occurred at
that institution and at “Correction Corcrin, ”
which the Court interprets as a reference to California State
Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) Queen
Victoria Morgan, (2) Senior Sherry Goldberg, (3) Ice
Immigration, and (4) Jose Fuentes Diaz, a master builder.
factual allegations are brief, quite disjointed and
essentially incomprehensible. They do contain brief
references to access to counsel, access to courts, false
imprisonment, freedom of religious practice, and excessive
force issues, but the Court is unable even to discern
therefrom what Plaintiff may intend to complain about or
anticipate what relief he seeks.