United States District Court, N.D. California
EDUARDO C. GARCIA, Plaintiff,
M. BUTTON; WILLIAM L. MUNIZ; R. PARIN; E. BORLA; S. HATTON; S. HERNANDEZ; D. AMBRIZ; DOES 1-15, Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
William Alsup United States District Judge
a California at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”), filed this civil rights case under 42
U.S.C. 1983 against SVSP officials. He is granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the
reasons discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon
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 is a 57 year-old inmate who fell down metal
stairs while being escorted from his cell during his search.
At the time of his fall, he had his hands handcuffed behind
his back. He injured his shoulder, left leg and head in the
fall. The next day, he informed medical staff that he was in
severe pain and bleeding. He was not seen by medical staff
until 15 days later, who ordered x-rays. Plaintiff asserts
that defendants are responsible for his fall by failing to
follow prison policies and procedures that would have ensured
his safety. Plaintiff also asserts that defendants are
responsible for his failure to receive medical attention
sooner. When liberally construed, these allegations state
cognizable claims for relief against defendants based on
their violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from
cruel and unusual punishment.
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
defendants Correctional Officer M. Button, Warden William L.
Muniz, Captain R. Parin, Associate Warden E. Borla, Chief
Deputy Warden S. Hatton, Sergeant S. Hernandez, Lieutenant D.
Ambriz at Salinas Valley State Prison. A courtesy copy of ...