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.

Frazier v. Matteson

United States District Court, E.D. California

December 13, 2019

SEMAJ LEON FRAZIER, Plaintiff,
v.
DAREN MATTESON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ECF NO. 27)

          BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Semaj Leon Frazier is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court for screening is Plaintiff's seventh amended complaint, filed on October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 27.)

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff commenced this action by filing his original complaint on February 11, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On July 18, 2019, before his original complaint was screened, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.)

         On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.)

         On August 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his complaint and lodged a third amended complaint. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.)

         On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second motion to amend his complaint and lodged another third amended complaint. (ECF No. 17, 18.)

         On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a third motion to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 19.) On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed another motion to amend and lodged a fifth amended complaint. (ECF No. 20, 21.)

         On September 24, 2019, the Court issued an order denying as moot three of Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint, granting one of Plaintiff's motions to amend his complaint, and directing the Clerk of the Court to file the lodged third amended complaint as the Sixth Amendment Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Additionally, the Court screened Plaintiff's sixth amended complaint, determined that Plaintiff's sixth amended complaint failed to state any cognizable claims for relief, and directed Plaintiff to file either a seventh amended complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal, within 30 days from the date of service of the order. (Id.)

         On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed his seventh amended complaint. (ECF No. 27.)

         II. Screening Requirement and Standard

         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 ...


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.