United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 20) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Peter Gerard Wahl (“Plaintiff”), a former state
prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
initiated this action on October 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On
July 25, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's first
amended complaint and granted him leave to amend. (ECF No.
19.) Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on
August 14, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening.
(ECF No. 20.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks 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)(ii).
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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, 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).
survive screening, Plaintiff's 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
formerly confined at Wasco State Prison, brings suit against
the following defendants: (1) Warden John Sutton; (2)
John/Jane Doe, Clerk of Orange County Superior Court; (3)
John and Jane Does, Classification Staff.
alleges that he was knowingly and intentionally deprived of
liberty interests by the Orange County Clerk/Prosecutor and
Warden Sutton and his classification staff. Plaintiff
contends that he was sentenced to 16 months in August 2016
with one month credit. He sought relief under Prop 47 after
his commitment to Wasco State Prison. On November 30, 2016,
the Orange County Court ordered Plaintiff resentenced to 6
months, deemed served. The Defendant Clerk of Court was
ordered to inform proper authorities, but did not comply
until December 1, 2016, after Plaintiff contacted the clerk.
Sutton and Classification Staff were notified by Plaintiff
via grievances after receipt of the order by Plaintiff, but
not by the Clerk, until December 21, 2016. Defendant Sutton
and staff failed to release Plaintiff until 8 days after
receipt of the order.
further alleges that the record of previous efforts to
litigate this issue conveys that Plaintiff was discovering
how the mishap happened after the belated release on December
29, 2016. Plaintiff asserts that he extended every effort
practically feasible in order to obtain relief from the
unlawful imprisonment. Plaintiff wrote to the Governor's
office and even submitted a claim against the Government.
contends that defendants, in their individual and official
capacities, inhibited, delayed and impaired Plaintiff's
release, and he suffered physical, psychological and
emotional duress, along with loss of liberty. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages.