United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Requirement and Standard
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.
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).
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.