Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20131218_0001475.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-24 15:26:18
Document Index: 635001739

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

| Vazquez v. Neotti
Vazquez v. Neotti
MARTIN VAZQUEZ, CDCR #D-18168, Plaintiff,v.GEORGE A. NEOTTI; W. SUGLISH; B. KOEN; PAYNE; R. DAVIS; M. JANNUSH; HUBERT; SANCHEZ, Defendants.
On July 24, 2013, Martin Vazquez ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 5), along with a "Motion to Allow Plaintiff to Re-File 42 U.S.C. § 1983" (ECF No. 3).
On October 17, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to file this action, granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court. ( Id. ) On November 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). (ECF No. 7.)
Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). See Calhoun, 254 F.3d at 845; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir. 1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur "before service of process is made on the opposing parties").
A. 1983 Standard
Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).
B. Defendants Neotti and Jannush
In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff no longer names Neotti and Jannush as Defendants. In the Court's previous Order, Plaintiff was cautioned that any Defendants "not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived." (ECF No. 6 at 8 (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).) Therefore, because Plaintiff has not renamed Neotti and Jannush as Defendants in his First Amended ...