Garcia v. Button

          ORDER OF SERVICE

          William Alsup United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, 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 defendants.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         Federal 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 Cir. 1990).

         Federal 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.

         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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

         B. Legal Claims

         Plaintiff 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.

         CONCLUSION

         For the reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:

         1. The 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 ...