United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(EFC NO. 11.) THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED
Chase (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
December 4, 2014, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
a Magistrate Judge in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance.
(EFC No. 5). Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the
Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the
undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case
until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is
required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 3,
2014 as part of a purported class action brought by a fellow
inmate and multiple co-plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1). The
Court severed the co-plaintiffs’ claims,
opened new cases for each of the co-plaintiffs, and ordered
each plaintiff to file an amended complaint in his own case.
(EFC No. 2). Therefore, Kenny Chase is now the only plaintiff
in this action. On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed his own
First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 4).
Court screened Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint and entered
an order on January 21, 2016, dismissing the Complaint for
failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (EFC No. 10).
On February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which is now before the Court for screening. (ECF
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names only one defendant,
Officer J. Lopez (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant intentionally left his flashlight where a riot
was ensuing so that other prisoners could use it as a weapon.
Plaintiff alleges this caused him injury, harm, and
psychological trauma. Plaintiff asks for compensatory and
screening Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the
Court finds that it fails to state any cognizable claims
under § 1983 against Defendant Lopez.
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 upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the
action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint is required to 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)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as
true, Courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true,
legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. The
mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this
plausibility standard. Id.
SUMMARY OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
alleges that Defendant Lopez fled the scene of an ensuing
racial riot among prisoners. Upon leaving, Defendant looked
at Plaintiff, smiled, picked up his tools, and knowingly left
his flashlight. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant’s sole purpose in leaving the flashlight was
so that the prisoners of Defendant’s nationality,
Latino, could procure it and use it as a weapon against
Plaintiff, an African prisoner.
claims that Defendant Lopez violated his Eighth Amendment
right against cruel and unusual punishment because Defendant
failed to enforce a policy or take other reasonable steps
when he knew the threat of violence was substantial.
Plaintiff claims that as a result, he suffered injury, harm,
and psychological trauma. Plaintiff asks for compensatory and
CRUEL AND ...