The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
On September 30, 2010, Plaintiff Jerry Haywood, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff's Complaint is now before the Court for screening.
II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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, malicious," or 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or appeal ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Section 1983 "provides a cause of action for the 'deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws' of the United States." Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393--94 (1989).
III. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is incarcerated at Wasco State Prison ("WSP"). (Compl. p.1, ECF No. 1.)
His complaint is difficult to read and difficult to understand. He appears to assert as follows: On August 16, 2010, Defendant Ramon verbally harassed him and other inmates. (Compl. at 5.) Defendants Martinez and Butler discussed the matter with Plaintiff, who became upset and was ordered to the "Cage". (Id. at 5-6.) On the way to the Cage, "4 to 5 officers began to choke and hit and kick [Plaintiff]", apparently because they perceived Plaintiff spat upon them, which Plaintiff disputes. (Id. at 6.) One of the Defendants then allegedly told the others that "we aren't allowed to do this" and the use of force then stopped. (Id.)
The Complaint attaches an Inmate Appeal Form, which appears to state that in the August 16, 2010 incident, Defendant Ramon failed to comply with Title 15 California Code of Regulations Section 3391(a), which deals with "Employee Conduct".*fn1 (Id. at 4.)
Plaintiff's Complaint appears to claim a violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. It names as Defendants: (1) Ramon, Correctional Officer, (2) Martinez, Correctional Officer, (3) St. Michael, Correctional Officer, (4) Stunlis, Correctional Officer, (5) Stroble, Correctional Officer, and (6) Butler, Correctional Sergeant. (Id. at 1.)
Plaintiff seeks the filing of criminal charges against, and unspecified monetary damages from, each Defendant. Plaintiff is also seeking a transfer to a federal facility because the Defendants are engaged in an ...