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.

Edward Yanez Vasquez v. County of Merced Correctional Facility

February 14, 2013

EDWARD YANEZ VASQUEZ PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF MERCED CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF No. 1) AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FIRST SCREENING ORDER

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Edward Yanez Vasquez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on February 1, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., 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 was incarcerated at the County of Merced Correctional Facility, John LaTorraca Correctional Center ("JLCC"), apparently as a pre-trial detainee.

He was asleep in his dorm on September 21, 2012, when Merced County Sheriff officers rushed in, threw a percussion grenade, yelled "get down", and started shooting bean bags. Plaintiff was hit with bean bags, even as he complied with directives of the officers.

Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) the County of Merced Correctional Facility, (2) the Merced County S.E.R.T. Team, (3) the Merced County SWAT Team, (4) Correctional Officer Vagerra, (5) Correctional Officer Rios, (6) Classification Correctional Officer Lacey, (7) Sgt. Salacup, (8) Correctional Officer Armenta, (9) Correctional Officer Aretga, (10) Correctional Officer Williams, (11) Correctional Officer Tilly, (12) Correctional Officer Hendon, (13) Correctional Officer Penia, (14) Correctional Officer Abriams, (15) Correctional Officer Lyconfilter, (16) Correctional Officer Carrillo.

Plaintiff seeks "legal justice, as well as an unlimited civil claim Merced County proves to show a different raid tactic unprofessional that needs to be addressed by their peers, higher authorities in JLCC." (Compl. at § V.)

IV. ANALYSIS

A. Pleading Requirements Generally

To state a claim under Section 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.' " Id. Facial plausibility demands more than ...


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.