Farha v. Foss

          ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO FILING IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT; DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

          YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R. J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJDCF”), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging constitutional violations that took place when he was previously incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”). See Dkt. 1 at 3-4.^[1] However, he does not elaborate on the time-frame of when such violations took place or whether Defendants are from SVSP or HDSP. See Id. Plaintiff has filed an in forma pauperis application, which will be granted in a separate written Order. He also requests for appointment of counsel. Dkt. 1 at 3.

         Venue is proper because the events giving rise to some of the claims are alleged to have occurred at SVSP, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

         In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants, who could be from either SVSP or HDSP: Acting Warden Tammatha Foss; Plumber M. Johnson; Supervisor of Building Trades J. Frailey; Associate Warden H. Wagner; ADA Coordinator R. St. Andre; and “John Does.” Dkt. 1 at 1-2. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

         To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         III. LEGAL CLAIMS

         A. Claims Against Defendants at HDSP

         Plaintiff seems to be complaining of various problems during his incarceration at HDSP, which is where he was incarcerated prior to his transfer to SVSP. See Dkt. 1 at 3-4. Because HDSP is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California, any such claims are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling them in a new civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See In re Hall, 939 F.2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal on venue grounds without prejudice).

         B. Remaining Claims Against ...