United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(ECF NO. 29) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Antwoine Bealer is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14, 2018, Plaintiff filed his original complaint. (ECF No.
1.) On February 28, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's
complaint and found that Plaintiff had failed to state a
cognizable claim. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff was provided with
the legal standards that applied to his claims and granted
leave to amend. (Id.)
April 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
(ECF No. 23.) On August 14, 2019, the Court screened
Plaintiff's first amended complaint and again found that
Plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No.
24.) Plaintiff was again provided with the legal standards
that applied to his claims and granted leave to amend.
before the Court for screening is Plaintiff's second
amended complaint, filed on September 30, 2019. (ECF No. 29.)
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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
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)).
Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff's
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the second
amended complaint as true only for the purpose of
the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C.
names the Kern Valley State Prison Classification Committee,
Kern Valley State Prison Warden John Doe, CCI D. Patterson,
CDW M. Sexton, and CCII M. Oliveira as Defendants.
asserts that Defendant Patterson, K. Welch, Sergeant T. Romo,
Defendant Oliveira, and Defendant Sexton were part of the
“Classification Committee that made the decision that
deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights.” (ECF
No. 29, at 10.) However, Plaintiff also states that he does
not know each individuals' involvement in the
constitutional violation, i.e., his retention in the SHU; he
is only aware that the decision to retain him in the SHU was
made by the Classification Committee in Corcoran State Prison
on October 8, 2015.
March 24, 2015, Plaintiff was placed in the Administrative
Segregation Unit (“ASU”) at Kern Valley State
Prison to serve an aggravated term of nine months for
threatening a peace officer. Plaintiff asserts that his
placement in ASU violated his rights because he did not
threaten a peace officer and he was not given a fair
opportunity to defendant against the allegations.
he completed serving his 9-month term in ASU in October 2015,
instead of being released back to general population,
Plaintiff was transferred to the Security Housing Unit
(“SHU”) at California State Prison, Corcoran. On
October 8, 2015, the Classification Committee elected to
retain Plaintiff in the SHU for administrative purposes and
only stated vague reasons for the decision to retain
Plaintiff. Plaintiff was not provided with a notice that he
would be retained in SHU or a written statement of the
evidence behind the decision. Plaintiff asserts that, in
fact, there was no evidence to support the Classification
Committee's decision to assess Plaintiff with an