Summary
This United States District Court order screens an amended complaint filed by an incarcerated pro se plaintiff alleging constitutional violations related to a prison incident. Applying the Prison Litigation Reform Act screening standard, the court finds that the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it does not relate to the factual basis of the original complaint. Consequently, the court dismisses the case with prejudice, assigns a statutory strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and outlines the procedures and deadlines for appealing the decision.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
- Whether dismissal with prejudice is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
Holdings
- The complaint fails to state a claim and is dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1).
Key quotations
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows a court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Factual background
While on a hunger strike in July 2021, plaintiff alleges prison staff opened his cell trap door and sprayed him with a chemical, causing burns. He also alleges prior incidents involving a toothbrush inserted into his penis and subsequent medical attempts to remove it.
Procedural history
Plaintiff, a prisoner, filed a pro se complaint alleging constitutional violations. The court screened the original complaint and found it deficient, gave the plaintiff leave to amend, and then screened the amended complaint, concluding it also failed to state a claim and dismissed the case with prejudice.