United States District Court, E.D. California
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, has filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2, 5.
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
to § 1915(e)(2), the court must dismiss the case at any
time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or
if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against an immune defendant.
pro se pleadings are liberally construed, see Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), a complaint, or
portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim if it fails to set forth “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554,
562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41
(1957)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
“[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the
‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief'
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that all of the
complaint's allegations are true.” Id.
(citations omitted). Dismissal is appropriate based either on
the lack of cognizable legal theories or the lack of pleading
sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must
accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,
Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S.
738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the
plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395
U.S. 411, 421 (1969). A pro se plaintiff must satisfy the
pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to
include a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the
defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
alleges that he suffers from “spinal core
disease” and carpometacarpal joint disease. ECF No. 1
at 9. He was on a morphine prescription for the pain caused
by those conditions. Id. at 10. On June 18, 2017,
defendant Aurich - a correctional officer - accused plaintiff
of “cheeking” his morphine pill. Id. On
June 27, 2018, plaintiff received a “disciplinary
chrono” stating that plaintiff had been caught
attempting to cheek/tongue his pain medication and had to be
directed by Aurich to swallow the pill. Id. at 11.
Shortly thereafter, his morphine prescription was
discontinued. Id. at 12-13.
alleges that Aurich's accusation was knowingly false and
undertaken to “effect cause for P.A.O. Akintola to
arbitrary (sic) discontinue plaintiff[']s morphine pain
medication . . . .” Id. at 12-13. Akintola is
not named as a defendant in this action. With respect to
defendant Halloran - a licensed vocational nurse - plaintiff
claims that she “aid[ed] & abet[ted]” Aurich
in submitting the fraudulent disciplinary chrono.
Id. at 14.
claims that the actions of Aurich and Halloran violated: (1)
his due process rights insofar as the disciplinary chrono was
false and (2) his Eighth Amendment rights by interfering with
his medical treatment. Both claims, as currently articulated,
plaintiff cannot maintain a due process claim based solely on
the falseness of a rules violation report or disciplinary
chrono. “A prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed
immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct
which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty
interest.” Chavira v. Rankin, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 167423, 2012 WL 5914913, *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing
Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir.
1989); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951 (2d
Cir. 1986)); see also Johnson v. Felker, No.
1:12-cv-02719 GEB KJN (PC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170474,
2013 WL 6243280, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013)
(“Prisoners have no ...