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.

Ramazzini v. Evans

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 20, 2014

NATHAN RAMAZZINI, Plaintiff,
v.
C/O EVANS, et al., Defendants

Nathan Ramazzini, Plaintiff, Pro se, Susanville, CA.

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIMS FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

Gary S. Austin, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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 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).

II. Plaintiff's Claims

A. Summary of Complaint

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Salinas Valley State Prison, brings this action against correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley State Prison, where the events at issue occurred. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: Warden Biter; Correctional Officer (C/O) Evans; Correctional Counselor Altamarino; John Doe defendants.[1] Plaintiff claims he was subjected to serious injury in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff was housed on a Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY), when a fight broke out between White and Hispanic inmates. Plaintiff was suspected of participating in the fight and was placed in Administrative Segregation (AdSeg) on March 4, 2012. In AdSeg, Plaintiff was housed with inmate Wallace, who knew Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that they " had always gotten along and agreed to be cell-mates."

On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff appeared at an AdSeg Review Hearing before Captain Rimbach. Plaintiff denied being a participant in the riot and denied that he was a gang member. Plaintiff alleges that Captain Rimbach was hostile to Plaintiff and told Plaintiff that the hearing was just a formality. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff was formally charged with willful participation in a riot.

On March 8, 2012, Plaintiff was approached by Defendant Altamarino, who " compelled Plaintiff to sign a CDCR 128 chrono which stated that Plaintiff did not fear for his well-being if put back on the yard he was on." Altamarino " discussed the contents of the chrono loudly in front of other prisoners." Plaintiff alleges that he was indeed afraid for his safety. At an AdSeg placement hearing the same day, Plaintiff explained that he was afraid of other White inmates who would believe he failed to assist them in the riot. Plaintiff was also afraid of Hispanic prisoners, who would believe he was involved in the fighting against them because of the disciplinary charge. The chrono was removed from Plaintiff's file. Altamarino, who was present at the hearing, was angered. Plaintiff alleges that Altamarino told him that she " would deal with him later."

On April 17, 2012, Altamarino came to Plaintiff's cell and asked Plaintiff why he wanted the chrono removed from his file. Plaintiff repeatedly asked Altamarino not to discuss the matter in the presence of other inmates. Altamarino told Plaintiff that someone would be around " to deal with this matter soon." Five minutes later, C/O Davis came to Plaintiff's cell and asked him why he was being so difficult with Altamarino. Davis warned Plaintiff that " he should watch his attitude because it could get real bad around here real quick."

The next day, C/O Evans came to Plaintiff's cell to talk to Plaintiff about why he did not want to go to yard. Plaintiff told Evans that he did not want to talk. Evans then threatened him with a cell extraction and removal of all personal property from his cell. Plaintiff complied and was taken to a holding cage in the hallway. Plaintiff ...


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.