Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Corona v. Kozloff

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 25, 2014

DANIEL CORONA, Plaintiff,
v.
R. KOZLOFF, et al, Defendants.

ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

This prisoner civil rights action comes before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1), his motion for immediate injunctive relief (dkt. no. 1-2), and for initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

I. PAUPER APPLICATION

To expedite procedures on the pauper application in a case that is subject to immediate dismissal, as discussed further infra, the Court defers payment of an initial partial filing fee to the installment payments made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). The application to proceed in forma pauperis therefore will be granted, subject to the remaining provisions herein. The Court thus proceeds to initial review.

II. SCREENING

When a "prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, " the court must "identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

In considering whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, all material factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true for purposes of initial review and are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Russell v. Landrieu, 621 F.2d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 1980). However, mere legal conclusions unsupported by any actual allegations of fact are not assumed to be true in reviewing the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-81 (2009). That is, conclusory assertions that constitute merely formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action and that are devoid of further factual enhancement are not accepted as true and do not state a claim for relief. Id.

Further, the factual allegations must state a plausible claim for relief, meaning that the well-pleaded facts must permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct:

[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." [ Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).] 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. Id., at 556.... 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. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id., at 557... (brackets omitted).
... [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not "show[n]" - "that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(a)(2).

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

In the complaint (dkt. no. 1-1), plaintiff Daniel Corona's claims all challenge the validity of his disciplinary conviction for assaulting another inmate. It is clear from the complaint that Corona lost 120 days statutory sentence credit as a result of the conviction. See dkt. no. 1-1, at 4-D, 4-F, 5-A, 5-B, 7, 8 & 9 (at electronic docketing pages 8, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22, & 23); see also dkt. no. 1-2, at 2 and further at electronic docketing pages 11 & 33. Plaintiff indeed expressly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.