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.

Smith v. Ponce

United States District Court, E.D. California

October 15, 2019

COLEMAN KENYATTA SMITH, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
S. PONCE, et al., Defendants.

         FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 12) OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

         Coleman Smith, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 5, 2018. (ECF No. 1). The Court screened the complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on February 4, 2019. (ECF Nos. 9 & 10). The Court screened that complaint as well, found that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, and gave Plaintiff leave to amend. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on March 18, 2019 (ECF No. 12), which is now before the Court for screening.

         For the reasons described below, the Court once again finds that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. The Court recommends dismissing Plaintiff's case without further leave to amend.

         Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to file objections to these findings and recommendations.

         I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

         A complaint is required to 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)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id. at 679. 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). Additionally, a plaintiff's legal conclusions are not accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally construed after Iqbal).

         II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff alleges that “on November 19” he was in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) in Corcoran State Prison when Defendant Sighn, a correctional officer, came to his cell to escort him to the shower. He kicked Defendant Sighn in the leg. He then got down on the floor and officers put him in leg restraints. While he was in leg and hand restraints, Officer Sighn started punching him.

         Plaintiff was then placed in a holding cell. A nurse evaluated him and found minor scars and scrapes. Plaintiff asked the Institution Gang Investigator and Sighn to make sure his legal work was sent after him because he is a life sentence inmate with possibility of parole. Plaintiff was told “no you have to start all over!” Plaintiff alleged that he understood this to mean that “he wanted to retaliated [sic] and harm me anyway possible.” Plaintiff claims that “[t]he State violated my due process violation under the State of the Constitution Amendment at my V Amendment Constitutional rights were violated.” He asks for “a preliminary and permanent injunction o[r]dering Defendants [Sighn and S. Ponce] to pay Plaintiff for the loss of personal property and court fees.” (ECF No. 12, at p. 6.)

         III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS

         A. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim

         a. Plaintiff Does Not Appear to Bring an Eighth Amendment Claim in his SAC

         While Plaintiff describes an incident where an officer allegedly attacked him, it does not appear that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim for excessive force. Instead, it appears to be background information for ...


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.