Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110324_0004372.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 08:45:11
Document Index: 499240483

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915']

| Robert N. Washington v. Department of Correction and Rehabilitation
ROBERT N. WASHINGTON, PLAINTIFF,v.DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Robert N. Washington, an inmate confined at Folsom State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 6. His application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides: Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . . .42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir.1978)
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it does not state a cognizable claim. First, plaintiff names as a defendant the "Department of Correction." A governmental agency that is an arm of the state is not a person for the purposes of § 1983. See Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). The state department of correction therefore must be dismissed from this action.
Plaintiff claims that Sergeant Major and Lieutenant Bickham deprived him of property and privileges by unnecessarily placing him in administrative segregation. But plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that the correctional officers' actions were unconstitutional. Plaintiff does not explain how his constitutional rights were violated. Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint.
The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading, including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff's action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation ofthese instructions.