ORDER OF SERVICE; GRANTING MOTION FOR MARSHAL TO SERVE DEFENDANTS; DENYING APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. He has paid the filing fee. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon defendants.
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only "give the defendant fair notice of what the.... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations, ... a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.... Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1974.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
B. LEGAL CLAIMS
Plaintiff alleges that following a prison riot in which he did not participate, a correctional officer applied plastic handcuffs to his wrists so tightly that they cut his right wrist. Over the next five and a half hours he complained repeatedly to defendants Smith, Pennisi and Ku, among many others, about being in extreme pain from the handcuffs, but they did not loosen or cut them. He alleges that he subsequently sought medical care for his wrist from defendant Ku, but she ignored his complaints that his wrist continued to bother him. He was eventually diagnosed with a pinched nerve in his right hand, from which he continued to suffer many months later. When liberally construed, plaintiff's allegations state a cognizable claim for violating his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
For the reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. The clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon defendants: Correctional Sergeant T. Smith, Correctional Sergeant L. Pennisi, Nurse Mike Ku, and Warden R. Grounds at Salinas Valley State Prison. A courtesy copy of the amended complaint ...