Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191209_0016306.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-03-31 23:22:12
Document Index: 751749532

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

FindACase™ | Villegas v. Spearman
Villegas v. Spearman
RUDOLFO VILLEGAS, Jr., Plaintiff,
M. SPEARMAN, Warden, Defendant.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) under the authority of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Plaintiff proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, finds the complaint as written unsuitable for service, and grants plaintiff leave to amend.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See ECF No. 8. Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff must nevertheless pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly at 555). To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal at 678 (quoting Twombly at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (citing Twombly at 556). Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it fails to cross the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Id.
In an exceptionally terse complaint, plaintiff contends that, under Proposition 57, he was wrongly denied a parole hearing upon completion of the base term of his sentence. He alleges that sole defendant HDSP Warden Spearman has violated plaintiff's rights under California's Proposition 57 and the federal constitution, specifically plaintiff's due process and equal protection rights. Plaintiff alleges that Spearman has instead applied his “own regulations” and “underground ...