Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01915/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01915-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH DANNY PROPHET,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01915-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION, WITH

PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM UNDER SECTION 1983, AND

DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO ENTER

JUDGMENT

(Doc. 11)

ORDER COUNTING DISMISSAL AS A

STRIKE UNDER SECTION 1915(G)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Joseph Danny Prophet, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 12, 2008. Plaintiff’s original

complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim on October 14, 2009, and Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim on October 29, 2009. Now pending

before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed December 3, 2009.

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 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). 

1

Case 1:08-cv-01915-SMS Document 12 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“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). 

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 bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at

1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Facial plausibility demands more than the mere

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct, Iqbal at 1950, and while factual allegations are

accepted as true, legal conclusion are not, id. at 1949.

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, who is incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State

Prison in Corcoran, alleges that Defendants Clark, Polk, Wright, Wadkins, Pratti, Gallagher, Bear,

and Zamora are depriving him of access to the courts, apparently by placing him in a job that

interferes with his ability to meet court deadlines. Plaintiff also alleges “[t]he retaliation through coworkers is connected through the chain of command.” (2 Amend. Comp., § IV.) nd

Plaintiff fails to set forth any allegations linking the defendants named in this action to

actions or omissions which caused him to suffer an actual injury to qualifying litigation. Christopher

v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351, 116 S.Ct.

2174 (1996); Phillips v. Hust , 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff’s general assertion that

he is permitted only two hours a week in the law library does not support a claim for violation of

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. Likewise, the vague assertion of retaliation

through the chain of command does not support any claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Iqbal at 1949-50. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which reliefmay be granted

under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously granted leave to amend twice to cure the deficiencies

2

Case 1:08-cv-01915-SMS Document 12 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in his claims but was unable to do so and further leave to amend is not warranted. Noll v. Carlson,

809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). This action is HEREBY ORDERED dismissed, with

prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983, and the Clerk’s Office shall enterjudgment. 

This dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:08-cv-01915-SMS Document 12 Filed 08/03/10 Page 3 of 3