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.

McCrea v. Pfeiffer

United States District Court, E.D. California

May 31, 2018

TERRENCE MCCREA, Plaintiff,
v.
C. PFEIFFER, Defendant.

         THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

          SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I.Screening Requirement and Standard

         Plaintiff Terrence McCrea (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 9, 2018, in Kern County Superior Court. The action was removed to this Court on April 4, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's complaint, dated November 28, 2017, is currently before the Court for screening. (Id.)

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (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).

         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). 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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II.Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison, where the events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred. Plaintiff names Warden C. Pfeiffer as the sole defendant.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows: On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff arrived at Kern Valley State Prison. Upon being housed in a cell, Plaintiff requested his state issue of clothing. Plaintiff was told by prison staff that he would not be receiving any issue of clothing until he appeared before the Institutional Classification Committee. Plaintiff requested a change of underwear, but prison staff refused his request, and Plaintiff was left in a paper jumpsuit and paper underwear for nine days. Plaintiff reportedly submitted a 602 complaint regarding the lack of adequate clothing.

         Plaintiff asserts a violation of Title 15 prison regulations, California Penal Code § 2084, and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the failure to provide him obligatory clothing for nine days. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensation in the amount of $65, 000.

         III.Discussion

         Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be given an opportunity to amend his claims to the extent he is able to do so in good faith. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the relevant pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to his claims.

         A. ...


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.