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.

Williams v. Davey

United States District Court, E.D. California

February 20, 2018

JOHN WILLIAMS III, Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID DAVEY, et al., Defendants.

         OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT THIS CASE BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF No. 14.)

          GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         John Williams III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.)

         On October 3, 2017, the court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) On December 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 14.)

         II. 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 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).

         A complaint is required to 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)). 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). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

         III.SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California, in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), where the events at issue in the First Amended Complaint allegedly occurred. Plaintiff names as defendants David Davey (Warden, CSP), E. Cantu (CCI), and Lieutenant (Lt.) Edward Sanchez (collectively, “Defendants”).

         When Plaintiff arrived at CSP, he was placed in the ASU (Administrative Segregation Unit or Ad-Seg) and told he would stay there for a few days, at the most. By law, inmates who are new to the prison must be brought before the ICC (Institutional Classification Committee) within fifteen working days. Also, an Ad-Seg inmate must be brought before the ICC within ten days and reviewed every thirty days. None of these procedures were followed for Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff was never given a 114 lock-up order, as required by the Operations Manual.

         Defendant Davey (Warden) never acted to assist Plaintiff or explain why Plaintiff is still housed in Ad-Seg. Defendant Davey was involved in ICC hearings every week and should have been aware that Plaintiff was housed in ASU waiting to see the ICC. Plaintiff had to wait 98 days before he was seen.

         Defendant E. Cantu went out of her way not to work on Plaintiff's case. When Plaintiff asked her, or sent a form 22 to her, she misled him only telling him what sounded good. She stalled Plaintiff from week to week and never brought him before the ICC. She also added to Plaintiff's file just to make it easy on herself, with less paperwork to do. Plaintiff had to file a 602 appeal before defendant Cantu would help him get out of AS U.So Plaintiff sat in ASU for 98 days before he was given the right to be seen, after he filed appeals to find out why he was being held in the ASU.

         Defendant Edward Sanchez was the officer who signed Plaintiff's lock-up order, but he never gave it to Plaintiff nor told him why he was placed in the ASU. Plaintiff was given the lock-up order ten days after his arrival, when it was placed under Plaintiff's door. At some point defendant Sanchez could have ...


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.