United States District Court, E.D. California
GEORGE E. JACOBS, Plaintiff,
CSR REPS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF,
1) THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
MICHAEL J. SENG UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. His complaint is before the Court for screening.
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,
malicious, ” or 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. §
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States was violated and
that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting
under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty.,
811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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)).
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
is incarcerated at California State Prison - Corcoran, where
the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. He names the
following defendants in their individual and official
capacities: (1) “CSR Reps, ” (2) “CP-R
Reps, ” (3) Warden Dave Davey, and (4) Sergeant
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
in 2012, Corcoran officials began to make false allegations
that Plaintiff had safety and security
concerns. Since that time, Plaintiff has continually
denied that he has such concerns.
March 29, 2015, Warden Davey agreed that the allegations were
invalid and released Plaintiff to the general population
pending transfer to another institution. Plaintiff
successfully programmed on the general population yard for
several months. During that time, Plaintiff was denied
transfer by CSR Reps and CP-R Reps based on the
“bogus” allegations of safety concerns.
unspecified occurred on May 6, 2015. As a result, CSR Reps
and CP-R Reps received additional “bogus”
information regarding Plaintiff’s safety concerns.
was injured on November 13, 2015. He does not explain the
mechanism of his injury, but states that his injury would not
have occurred were it not for the bogus allegations that
prevented his transfer. He states that Defendants tried to
force him to accuse another inmate as his attacker but
Plaintiff refused. On November 14, 2015, Plaintiff was placed
on Administrative Segregation (“AdSeg”) status by
Sergeant Alvarado. However, Plaintiff was not immediately
placed in the AdSeg unit, apparently because he was
hospitalized. Plaintiff’s arm was broken and was not
operated on for a month. Plaintiff was given inadequate pain
March 11, 2016, Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital
pending transfer to an outpatient medical institution for
treatment of his right arm. Defendants were aware of
Plaintiff’s medical condition. However, Defendants
placed Plaintiff in AdSeg due to a report from Alvarado that
Plaintiff had safety concerns with the “Bloods”
security threat group. This information was false. Plaintiff
was denied medical treatment. “Prison personnel”
became verbally aggressive and refused to provide ADA
accommodations for Plaintiff’s arm.
3, 2016, Plaintiff was taken to an Institutional
Classification Committee (“ICC”) hearing. The
Committee confirmed that the allegations of security concerns
were invalid. The ICC determined to release Plaintiff to the
general population pending an accelerated transfer to another
institution for treatment of Plaintiff’s mental health
4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 602 challenging the ICCs decision
not to send Plaintiff to a medical prison for treatment of
his arm. He states that the prisons the ICC indicated it
would transfer him to are violent and would subject him to
risk of further injury to his arm. He alleges that such
transfer violates various provisions of the California Code
Defendants CSR Reps and CP-R Reps cancelled the accelerated
transfer. Plaintiff believes this was done in retaliation for
Plaintiff filing a 602. Plaintiff was told by a Correctional
Counselor II that Defendants relied on false information from
May 6, 2015, when Plaintiff was housed in the general
population. Plaintiff was told that he could not be
transferred until IGI investigators filed a closure
time of filing his complaint, Plaintiff remained in solitary
confinement. As a result, he has been unable to see his
family. He also alleges that such confinement violates the
“Coleman Act.” He states that his continued
placement in solitary generates suspicion amongst other
prisoners that puts Plaintiff’s life, and his family
members’ lives, in danger.
16, 2016, Plaintiff received notice of a computerized data
breach that compromised Plaintiff’s personal
information and health information when a CDCR laptop was
stolen. He fears that such information in the wrong hands
will lead to a “hit” on his family.
claims violation of his First, Eight, and Fourteenth
Amendment rights and Article 5 of the California
Constitution. He claims that Warden Davey and “the
hiring authority” failed to train their designees and
turned a blind eye to violations. He seeks release from
solitary confinement and money damages.
lists unnamed CSR Reps and CP-R Reps as Defendants. The Court
construes this as an attempt to ...