United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
GONZALEZ ROGERS United States District Judge
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State
Prison-Los Angeles County, has filed the instant pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against prison officials at Pelican Bay State Prison
(“PBSP”), where he was previously incarcerated.
Dkt. 1. He has also filed a motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, which will be granted in a
separate written Order.
has named the following Defendants at PBSP: Sergeant Z.
Basnett; and Correctional Officers E. Burr, E. Contreras, D.
Torne, and R. Scruggs. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks
monetary and punitive damages. Id. at 3.
is proper because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's
claims in his complaint are alleged to have occurred at PBSP,
which is located in this judicial district. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Court now reviews Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend to correct
certain deficiencies addressed below.
Standard of Review
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must
identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that
are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
states that, on December 28, 2016, Defendants Burr, Contreras
and Basnett “with other unidentified officers extracted
Plaintiff and his cellmate from their cell and confiscated
everything from the cell . . . leaving behind only trash . .
. .” Dkt. 1 at 5. Plaintiff claims that he “was
left without basic human necessities and religious liberties
for at least 14 days with no pen[o]logical reason.”
January 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed a CDCR Form 22,
Inmate/Parolee Request for Interview, Item or Service, to
request for the return of his property, but Defendants
Basnett only returned Plaintiff's cellmate's
January 10, 2017, Defendants Burr and Contreras returned
Plaintiff's property “excluding his T.V. and
typewriter that were alleged to be altered.”
Id. However, Plaintiff claims that “R&R
found them not to be altered and returned them later.”
early February 2017, Plaintiff had a disciplinary hearing for
three serious Rules Violation Reports (“RVRs”)
stemming from the December 28, 2016 search, including
possession of a cellphone, and altering his T.V. and
typewriter. Id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant
Contreras retaliated against Plaintiff for filing grievances
by falsifying documents related to the RVR involving the
altered typewriter. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was found