Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01614/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01614-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANVILLE WILLIAM SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1614 MCE CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. On March 17, 2016, the court screened 

plaintiff’s amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed a 

second amended complaint.

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).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:15-cv-01614-MCE-CKD Document 26 Filed 05/17/16 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

2

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

After conducting the required screening, the court finds that plaintiff’s second amended 

complaint again fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While the court gave 

plaintiff detailed suggestions about the ways in which his pleadings should be modified in order 

to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, plaintiff’s second amended complaint still 

suffers from the same problems as the first. Most notably, the allegations are simply too vague to 

demonstrate that any defendant caused plaintiff any actionable injury. Further, plaintiff has not 

explained why most, if not all, of his claims are not time-barred. For these reasons, the court will 

recommend that plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed, and this case be closed. The 

court does not dismiss plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend a third time as that appears futile,

especially given the information provided to plaintiff on the dismissal of his first amended 

complaint which plaintiff essentially ignored. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:15-cv-01614-MCE-CKD Document 26 Filed 05/17/16 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

3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint be dismissed; and

2. This case be closed.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 

Cir. 1991).

Dated: May 17, 2016

1

smit1614.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01614-MCE-CKD Document 26 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 3