United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
TIGAR United States District Judge.
a California prisoner incarcerated at the California
Correctional Institution and proceeding pro se, filed this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
constitutional violations at San Quentin State Prison
(“SQSP”), where he was previously incarcerated.
Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a
separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 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).
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations and internal quotations omitted). Although a
complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations
[in order to state a claim], . . . 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, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
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 violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that SQSP defendants Warden Ronald Davis and
Lieutenant Jackson, knowing that plaintiff was vulnerable to
enemy attack, placed him in the SQSP general population,
where plaintiff was thereafter assaulted by another inmate.
When liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable
Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to safety
under § 1983.
foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States
Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of
the complaint (Docket No. 1), and a copy of this order upon
Warden Ronald Davis and Lt. Jackson at San Quentin State
Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of the complaint and
this order to the ...