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.

McClane v. Casas

United States District Court, E.D. California

April 3, 2018

MATTHEW MCCLANE, Plaintiff,
v.
G. CASAS., et al., Defendants.

          FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1) FOR SERVICE OF COGNIZABLE FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS CASAS, CARILLO, RAMIREZ, WILSON, AND FRAZIER, AND (2) TO DISMISS ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 9)

          Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         On October 16, 2017, this Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found it states cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claims against CO Casas, CO Carillo, CO Ramirez, and CO Wilson, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given leave to amend. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 9.)

         I. 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, ” 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. Pleading Standard

         A 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.

         Section 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 Cir. 1987).

         Under 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.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. He complains of events that occurred there. Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) G. Casas, Correction Officer, (2) A. Carrillo, Correctional Officer, (3) A. Ramirez, Correctional Officer, (4) E. Wilson, Correctional Officer, (5) C. Frazier, Lieutenant, and (6) S. Sherman, Warden

         Plaintiff's allegations can be fairly summarized as follows:

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff, gang member dropout, asked Defendant Casas for a cell move because he was having problems with his cell mate, inmate Lagarde, a gang member. Defendant Casas failed to act on Plaintiff's request despite knowing that Plaintiff was left exposed to serious harm.

         Plaintiff also asked Defendant Carrillo for a move. CO Carillo denied the request, stating that Plaintiff could not move for six months. Plaintiff then asked Defendant Ramirez who responded that he did not do cell moves. Finally, Plaintiff asked ...


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.