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.

Wilson v. Perez

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 10, 2019

GERALD JAY WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
A.R. PEREZ, et al., Defendants.

          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 DEADLINE

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff 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 No. 1.)

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         The 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. §§ 1915A(b); 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 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.

         In May 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendant 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         III. Discussion

         Plaintiff's 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.

         A. ...


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.