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.

Miller v. Bounds

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 22, 2019

JOSEPH MICHAEL MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA BOUNDS, et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 1) THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Joseph Michael Miller(“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this civil action on June 10, 2019. Plaintiff's complaint is currently before the Court for screening. (Doc. No. 1.)

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         The Court screens complaints brought by persons proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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. § 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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).

         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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is currently housed at North Kern State Prison. The allegations in the complaint are alleged to have occurred in Madera County, California. As defendants, Plaintiff names the following individuals: (1) Rebecca Bounds, Human Resources Staff; and (2) Michael Splivalo, attorney at law.

         Plaintiff alleges as follows:

Plaintiff suffered slander and defamation of character, and procuring false writings to acts, of subordination, of perjury to obtain money in a court, of law. [¶] Plaintiff further suffered damage to his names, and reputation that is not measurable as it is possible that such documentation is or has become public record. [¶] Plaintiff suffered a serious beating assault on 11-21-2017. Because of the reports filed with falsity to violate my Due process rights in the Court, of Law, of Divorce Court. Plaintiff was subjected to mental anguish and loss of love, and the manifest nessity [sic] should be applied in the U.S. Courts orders where Plaintiff's material evidence that was filed in a court of law warrants reopening of the claim where respondents acting under the laws had directed the deprivation of rights and had Actual Knowledge of the damage with evil intent the Attorney specifically said Miller has several convictions for sexual battery and indecent exposure on my jacket in No. MFL003968. The attorney and client acting under the color of law placed Plaintiff's life danger in need of relief, and discovery.

(Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that the slander and defamation of character damaged his reputation and labeled him as a sex offender. Plaintiff asserts that he was beaten by a prion inmate who obtained the documents filed in the court. (Id. at 3.)

         Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

         III. Discussion

         Plaintiff's complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, fails to establish this Court's jurisdiction, and fails to state a cognizable federal claim. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he will be granted leave to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies to the extent he can do so ...


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.