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.

Jones v. Bright

United States District Court, N.D. California

October 6, 2014

MALIK JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
D. BRIGHT, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Malik Jones's amended complaint, filed as part of his pro se federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

His original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. It raised a wide variety of unrelated claims against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The order of dismissal, invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, instructed Jones that he "may only allege claims that (a) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (b) present questions of law common to all defendants named therein." (Docket No. 16 at 2.)

The amended complaint suffers from the same deficiencies of the first. In it, Jones again raises a wide variety of unrelated claims against staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, ranging from inadequate medical treatment to excessive force. Only one of these claims shall proceed.

Having concluded that the amended complaint (Docket No. 21) states a cognizable claim against D. Tyler for providing constitutionally inadequate medical care, the Court directs defendants to file in response to the operative complaint a dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or before January 12, 2015, unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs that defendants are to adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Section 10 of the conclusion of this order. The remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice as detailed below.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that 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. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

A "complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting 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. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court "is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged." Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994). 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 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff Jones makes various claims against eighteen defendants (correctional officers, administrators, and medical staff) for many acts and omissions unrelated by fact or law. The sole claim that shall proceed in this action is the claim that D. Tyler, a nurse at Salinas Valley State Prison, provided constitutionally inadequate medical care. When liberally construed, those allegations state a claim for relief under § 1983.

His claims that his administrative grievances were improperly processed, and his central files corrupted, by defendants I. Herrera and E. Medina are DISMISSED without prejudice to Jones filing them in a separate civil rights complaint.

His claim that D. Bright, a physician, used excessive force against him is DISMISSED without prejudice to Jones filing such ...


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.