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.

Carr v. California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 7, 2018

CLAUDE CARR, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DE PARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS DUE TO ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY [ECF No. 1]

         I. INTRODUCTION

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

         Plaintiff initiated this action on December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On January 11, 2018, Plaintiff declined to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 302, and this matter was assigned to United States District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)

         On May 2, 2018, by order of Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, this matter was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin to the undersigned, due to the equitable division and efficient and economical determination of court business. (ECF No. 10.)

         Plaintiff's complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening.

         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 on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         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)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

         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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III.

         COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         The events at issue occurred when Plaintiff was housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. Plaintiff names as defendants (1) the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; (2) the Prison Industry Authority; and (3) Ted Pruitt, a supervisor at the Prison Industry Authority.

         Plaintiff alleges that on June 21, 2016, while he was performing his job as a waste manager in the Prison Industry Authority food and beverage shop, supervisor Ted Pruitt compelled Plaintiff to manual lift and stack bags of compacted plastic weighing between 90 to 150 pounds onto pallets without the aid of compacting machinery. Plaintiff performed under threat of discipline and termination. This violated state and federal guidelines, laws, policies, regulations and practices and procedures for maintaining a safe working environment. As a result, ...


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.