United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A
DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTION, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ECF No. 1), THIRTY (30) DAY
Maxcime Cagan is a federal prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
before the Court for screening is Plaintiff's complaint,
filed on November 15, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)
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.
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as
true only for the purpose of the sua sponte
screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
names U.S. Penitentiary Atwater Warden S. Lake, U.S.
Penitentiary Atwater Mail Room Officer M. Fischer, U.S.
Penitentiary Atwater Mail Room Officer R. Martinez, and the
Federal Bureau of Prisons as Defendants.
alleges as follows:
Mr. S. Lake is the warden and is responsible for making sure
that FBOP policies are property executed at Atwater, he has
failed (5) five separate times in this regard, because on the
dates below Mr. M. Fischer, and Mr. R. Martinez opened my
legal mail from my attorney outside of my presence, and
processed them through regular mail with a stamp that states
my legal mail doesn't meet the criteria for legal mail
per BOP policy, after I filed for administrative action they
realized I had a case against them and started to call me to
the mail room despite the letters being addressed in exactly
the same manner, my complaint is because my complaint and
appeal was denied by BOP despite the fact that they were
aware of their violations … The dates the letters were
opened are: 1/2/18, 1/29/18, 2/23/18, 9/21/18, and 1/28/19
(ECF No. 1, at 3.) Plaintiff further states that the
Defendants' actions or inactions have injured him because
his attorney-client confidentiality is being violated, his
legal mail is being read and copied, and his ability to
prepare and transmit his legal documents is “fatally
affected by this federal violation…”
seeks $20, 000.00 in monetary damages. (Id. at 6.)