United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate in the San Francisco County Jail, filed this civil
rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the City and County
of San Francisco. He is granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed
below, the complaint is ordered served upon defendant.
Standard of Review
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
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.
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).
alleges that he was attacked by three inmates in October
2014while on a jail bus. During the fight, a Sheriff’s
deputy witnessed the attack but allowed it to continue. He
was then taken to a jail medical clinic where he was given a
doctor’s appointment for six months later. In September
2015, he was told by staff at the San Francisco General
Hospital that his injuries were permanent and would require
surgery. As of March 2016, plaintiff still required further
surgery. When liberally construed, these allegations state a
cognizable claim against the City and County of San Francisco
for violating his constitutional right to safety and adequate
medical care as an inmate.
reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
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
defendant the City and County of San
Francisco. A courtesy copy of the complaint
with attachments ...