United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS OLIVEIRA AND GALVIZ ORDER DIRECTING
CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM (ECF NO. 17)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Shauntae Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed
on August 14, 2019, is currently before the Court for
screening. (ECF No. 17.)
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 California State Prison at Sacramento
and alleges the events in the complaint occurred while
Plaintiff was housed at Corcoran. Plaintiff names the
following defendants: (1) Dr. Mims, Mental Health Physician,
Dr. Kyle, Mental Health Physician, (3) Beer, Correctional
Sergeant, (4) Oliveira, Correctional Counselor, (5) Galviz,
Claim I, Plaintiff alleges violation of the Eighth Amendment
for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious mental
health and medical needs. In Claim II, Plaintiff alleges the
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of
Plaintiff's First Amendment rights.
specific allegations are as follows: Plaintiff arrived from
Kern Valley State Prison on June 15, 2018 and had been on
suicide watch. Plaintiff has a long history of serious mental
health problems. Mental Health personnel do not believe
people who verbally express depression or suicidal ideations.
Plaintiff believes Mental Health staff do not care. He
referred to Exh. A-3 which is a partial diagnosis of
Plaintiff's conditions expressing his violent tendencies
and the need for involuntary medication. Plaintiff alleges he
relives trauma due to a hurtful childhood, family issues, and
job loss. Plaintiff alleges that staff had 10 days to
transfer Plaintiff to the hospital or raise his level of
mental health. A checklist had to be completed and a follow
up plan developed. (EXF No. 17, Exh. A-4 p.3.) Dr. Mims used
vindictiveness and bias for discharging an inmate from
suicide watch on personal vendettas or beliefs.
then alleges a “violent transfer” June 15, 2018
incident with custody where he was being moved and was
injured in his right arm and he was denied waist restraints.
He alleges that he was denied waist restraints by Mental
Mims was unprofessional, biased and hateful in her notes
about Plaintiff's mental disorder. Dr. Mims said
Plaintiff is likely to die in prison before any opportunity
for release and she wished death upon Plaintiff. Dr. Kyle
knew Plaintiff was being discharged while still being
suicidal. Dr. Kyle acted in unison with the deliberate
indifference. Plaintiff that talks about his underlying case
involving his mental breakdown and the events of that case,
which do not appear to be relevant to Plaintiff's
complains that Dr. Mims and Dr. Kyle do not review mental
history and go back to years prior to see when an
inmate's troubles started. This is negligence. They
basically called Plaintiff a fake and discharged Plaintiff
from the crisis unit while being aware of his continued
alleges Defendant Beer used unprofessional, unlawful,
derogatory threats towards Plaintiff on August 7, 2018.
Defendant Beer made physical threats against Plaintiff and
threatened a beating. Plaintiff submitted on August 9, 2018
an emergency appeal of Defendant Beer's actions and
threats. Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant Beer stopped
or delayed the responses to his 602s.
states that he will “remove” from the complaint
Defendants Oliveira and Galviz. (ECF No. 17 p.10
(“I'll let the court please extract and remove the
two defendants named above [Oliveira and Galviz] from this
alleges Dr. Mims came to his door for the first time and
introduced herself and asked Plaintiff if he would like to
come out and speak. Plaintiff gave reasons for his refusals,
including his injury and not getting waist restraints. When
Dr. Mims came back to talk to him, she told him she had
called his prior prison he had just transferred from and the
clinician there said Plaintiff was not coming out to talk
there either. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Mims asked Plaintiff
to allow Dr. Mims to watch him masturbate so she could send
him to an outside hospital. Plaintiff knew it was a set up so
he would get a violation report for indecent exposure.
attempted suicide on two occasions in April 2019 while at
Corcoran. Plaintiff should not have been discharged from the
mental health crisis unit because they were aware that
Plaintiff was feeling suicidal. Plaintiff received a rules
violation for a retaliatory cell extraction on April 12, 2019
as an adverse effect.
31, 2019, at CSP Sacramento, Plaintiff's television, CD
player and other property were replaced do to John Doe
unknown officer destroying and sealing plaintiff's
property on April 12, 2019.
seeks as injunctive relief as follows: place a staff
separation alert upon all defendants disallowing Plaintiff to
be near or around any of the defendants. Plaintiff also seeks
compensatory and punitive damages.
complaint is lengthy, disjointed, repetitive and difficult to
understand. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 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). 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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). While
factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions
are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at
complaint is not short. It consists of 14 densely packed
handwritten pages of rambling and disjointed allegations. The
amended complaint is less clear of the allegations Plaintiff
contends violated his constitutional rights than was his
original complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint is not
a short statement of the facts which comprise his ...