United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS DUE TO ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY [ECF
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.
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.)
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.)
complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, is currently before
the Court for screening.
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).
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
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.
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
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