United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California
Correctional Institution, has filed the instant pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. He alleges various violations of his constitutional
rights during his previous incarceration at Pelican Bay State
Prison (“PBSP”). The Court has granted his motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 12.
twenty-four-page complaint raises multiple allegations with
respect to events that occurred at PBSP sometime between 2016
to 2017. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to
the aforementioned claims are alleged to have occurred at
PBSP, which is located in this judicial district.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Court now conducts its initial review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the
court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any
claims that 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. See Id.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must,
however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
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.” To comport with Rule 8,
“[s]pecific 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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A
complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the
“plausible on its face” standard of
Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide
the complaint's framework, they must be supported by
factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual
allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
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 violation was committed by a person
acting under color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of
personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a
sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's
wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman
v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.
1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). A supervisor therefore
generally “is only liable for constitutional violations
of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or
directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed
to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880
F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). This includes evidence that
a supervisor implemented “a policy so deficient that
the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights
and is the moving force of the constitutional
violation.” Redman, 942 F.2d at 1446; see
Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 917 (9th Cir. 2001).
asserts multiple claims for relief against a total of twenty
defendants, from whom he seeks both declaratory relief and
monetary damages. As mentioned above, the allegations in the
complaint cover a span of time of almost one year,
specifically from May 2016 through March 2017, during which
period Plaintiff was incarcerated at PBSP. When the
allegations in the complaint concerning his confinement at
PBSP are liberally construed, Plaintiff seems to state the
following claims for relief: (1) unlawful deprivation of
Plaintiff's property in May 2016; (2) denial of legal
materials on October 4, 2016 and failure to train properly
the prison librarian; (3) denial of medical care on November
4, 2016 and failure to train properly medical personnel; (4)
discrimination using “anti-Muslim slurs” and
denial of Halal meals on January 3, 2017, as well as failure
to train properly correctional officers not to discriminate
based on religion; (5) retaliation (based on Plaintiff filing
grievances) by spreading “false rumors” to other
prisoners causing Plaintiff to be in danger while housed in
general population on February 20, 2017, and failure to train
properly correctional officers to prevent retaliation; (6)
retaliation (again based on Plaintiff filing grievances) and
“mail censorship” on March 9, 2017; and (7)
failing to refund Plaintiff's money for “unfair
business practice[s]” by the prison canteen after the
loss of items from his order on March 12, 2017. Plaintiff
names the aforementioned twenty defendants in connection with
the noted claims.
reviewed the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds
the following pleading deficiencies require that the