United States District Court, Eastern District of California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM [ECF No. 1]
Plaintiff Jesse Hunter is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on November 5, 2014. Local Rule 302.
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 or malicious, ” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff names James A. Yates, McBride, Walker, Oxborrow, and Deathridge. The events at issue in this action took place at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP).
On or about May 7, 2011, at approximately 12:50 p.m., while Plaintiff was in the gymnasium, prison officials staged a riot, in which officers conducted forceful actions by several Mexican inmates to attack African American inmates for the purpose of “training exercise” which allowed the officers to use tear gas, pepper spray, and shotguns. The Mexican inmates outnumbered the African American inmates at a ratio of eight-to-one.
On or about February 19, 2010, and November 2, 2011, while Plaintiff was housed in the gymnasium, he was “besieged” by Hispanic inmates who were instructed to engage in mutual combat against Plaintiff and several other African American inmates, also residing in the gymnasium, for the express purpose of “Practice Procedures for Officers to Quell Riots, ” and proceeded to allow Hispanic inmates to engage in a riot against African American inmates at a ratio of eight-to-one. Plaintiff suffered serious to minor injuries from the beatings by Hispanic inmates.
While Plaintiff was housed in the gymnasium, he was a participant in the Mental Health Services Delivery System. As a result of the officer initiated riots, Plaintiff has suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, precipitated by the numerous riots staged against him and other African American inmates. Plaintiff is currently under treatment by prison mental health staff for this serious mental condition, resulting from the numerous riots in which he was forced to engage within.
The named Defendants, knew or should have known, that Plaintiff was suffering from a mental health crisis episode when they viewed him in his cell the following morning of November 3, 2011. Plaintiff, as a result of ineffective treatment, suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. To this date, Plaintiff is being treated by the Mental ...