United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a former California state prisoner, filed this pro se civil
rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison
officials violated his right to due process by failing to
restore his time credits, which caused him to be imprisoned
twelve days past his release date. He is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the
reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any
cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not
necessary; the statement need only '"give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v.
Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his
'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 1974.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege
two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
(2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations that
defendants Palmer and Botello improperly failed to restore
his time credits, which caused him to be imprisoned for
twelve days beyond his release date, and that defendant
Koenig failed to properly train Palmer and Botello how to
correctly restore time credits, state a cognizable claim
against him for the violation of his right to due process.
reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States
Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of
the complaint with all attachments thereto, and a copy of
this order upon defendant Correctional Counselor J.
Palmer, Supervising Correctional Counselfor M. Botello, and
Wardent C. Koenig at the California Training
Facility in Soledad California. A courtesy copy of
the complaint ...