Summary
dismissing claim that hundreds of prison officials across the state have used a "mind-bending" device utilizing penilephethymegraph/GPS technology to torture him and to modify his behavior
Summary of this case from Vargas v. GonzalesOpinion
No. CIV S-10-2555 GEB DAD P
03-13-2012
JOHN P. SIMON, Plaintiff, v. CDCR et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
By way of background, on August 4, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend, explaining to him that any amended complaint he elected to file must contain a short and plain statement of his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). On September 13, 2011, the court granted plaintiff an extension of time to for that purpose. On October 12, 2011, plaintiff submitted to the court for filing thousands of disorganized and confusing documents. The court advised plaintiff that these documents did not qualify as an amended complaint. The court declined to file plaintiff's voluminous documents and instead returned them to him. In the interest of justice, the court again granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, this time of no more than twenty-five (25) pages in length. The court cautioned plaintiff that his failure to comply with the court's order, including compliance with the twenty-five (25) page limit now imposed, would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Nonetheless, on November 2, 2011, plaintiff filed five amended complaints.
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 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 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.
Rule 8(a)(2) 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)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 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 Hospital 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).
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
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. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINTS
As noted above, on November 2, 2011, plaintiff filed five amended complaints with the court. Once more, plaintiff's hand-written allegations are confusing, disorganized, and outlandish. Plaintiff's primary complaint appears to be that hundreds of prison officials across the state have used a "mind-bending" device utilizing penilephethymegraph/gps technology to torture him and to modify his behavior. Plaintiff alleges that he has suffered mental and physical injuries as a result of the device and requests injunctive relief and damages.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff's amended complaint is frivolous and should be dismissed. The complaint is based on the outlandish premise that hundreds of prison officials statewide have used a device to monitor and torture him. Plaintiff's allegations are too far-fetched to be believed. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) ("the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous or malicious"); Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28 (in forma pauperis statute accords judges the authority to dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless, such as those "describing fantastic or delusional scenarios"); see also Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990) ("It is not an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend when any proposed amendment would be futile.").
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. All pending motions be denied as moot;
2. This action be dismissed as frivolous; and
3. This action be closed.
These findings and recommendations are 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 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's 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).
________________________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE