United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [ECF No. 1] THIRTY-DAY
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Gerald Jay Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's
complaint is currently before the Court for screening. (ECF
Screening Requirement and Standard
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. §§
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).
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.
is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison. Plaintiff
alleges that the events at issue took place at the Substance
Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran (“SATF”).
Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) A.R. Perez,
Correctional Sergeant; (2) J. Almjuez, Administrative
Segregation Property Officer; (3) M. Bremner, appeals
interview officer; (4) M. Rivera, Correctional Sergeant; (5)
Garcia, correctional officer, (6) L.C. Hense, Chief Deputy
Warden at Corcoran State Prison, (7) G. Jamie, Chief Deputy
Warden at Kern Valley State Prison.
2016, Plaintiff was transferred to SATF with eight boxes of
personal property. Plaintiff's property would exceed the
six cubic feet of legal property permitted, but he was
allowed to keep one cubic feet of legal property, because the
case was active, and would be allowed to store the remaining
legal items at SATF Receiving and Release (R&R). On
November 29, 2016, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative
Segregation at Corcoran for his safety. Plaintiff alleges
that staff at SATF R&R should have transferred
Plaintiff's property to Corcoran. On December 11, 2016,
Defendant Almjuez issued some of Plaintiff's personal
property, but some personal property was missing. Defendant
Almjuez told Plaintiff that Defendant Almjuez did not have
any other personal property for Plaintiff. Plaintiff told
Defendant Almjuez that he needed the legal property for
appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Defendant Almjuez said he would check on the property, but
never got back to Plaintiff about his property.
let the appeals court know that he was having property
difficulties and requested an extension of time. Plaintiff
also filed a grievance with no response. Plaintiff had to
proceed on appeal without pertinent documents to cite to the
Court which harmed Plaintiff. Defendants deprived Plaintiff
of the pertinent legal items for two years with the intention
to deny access to courts.
Garcia had the responsibility to transfer Plaintiff's
legal documents that were stored at SATF R&R to Corcoran.
Defendant Sergeant Perez had the responsibility to answer the
Plaintiff's grievance concerning Plaintiff's legal
documents stored at SATF. Sergeant Rivera had the
responsibility to issue Plaintiff's three boxes of legal
document when the items were supposed to be transferred to
Kern Valley State Prison on or about May 25, 2017.
alleges the Chief Deputy Warden G. Jaime had the
responsibility to investigate the first level finding and not
interfere with Plaintiff's right to access to the courts.
Defendant Sergeant M. Bremner put forth misleading statements
to interfere with Plaintiff right to access to the Court.
sues each defendant in their personal and official
capacities. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
damages. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for retaliation by
each Defendant during the pendency of this action.
complaint fails to state a claim. As Plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, he will be given an opportunity to amend his
complaint to cure the identified deficiencies 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.