Johnson, Jr. v. California Health Care Facility et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/20/2015 DISMISSING plaintiff's amended complaint; and this case is closed. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LARVESTER J. JOHNSON, JR.,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-0650 CKD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

19

1983. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge.

20

See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On March 27, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file

21

an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

22

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

23

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

24

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

25

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

26

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

27

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

28

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

In his amended complaint, plaintiff asserts that officials at the California Health Care

16

Facility “have punished [plaintiff] for the same crime twice.” Plaintiff fails to elaborate except

17

that he suggests defendants’ actions have prolonged his stay in prison. In any case, plaintiff fails

18

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, as plaintiff was informed in the order

19

dismissing his original complaint (ECF No. 4), to the extent he seeks an earlier release date, his

20

sole federal remedy is a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Preiser v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S.

21

475, 500 (1973). For these reasons, the court will dismiss this action. Considering plaintiff has

22

already been granted leave to amend to cure the deficiencies in his pleadings, granting leave to

23

amend again would be futile.

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

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

2

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed; and

3

2. This case is closed.

4

Dated: August 20, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

1
john0659.dis

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3