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.

Cagan v. Lake

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2019

MAXCIME CAGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
S. LAKE, et al., Defendants.

          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 DEADLINE

         Plaintiff 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).

         Currently before the Court for screening is Plaintiff's complaint, filed on November 15, 2019. (ECF No. 1.)

         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 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).

         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)). 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 Cir. 2002).

         Prisoners 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.

         II. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         The 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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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…” (Id.)

         Plaintiff seeks $20, 000.00 in monetary damages. (Id. at 6.)

         III. ...


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.