United States District Court, E.D. California
JOHN ERIC WILLIAMS, also known as Michael J. Coleman Plaintiff,
L. LOZANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)
Screening Requirement and Standard
John Eric Williams, aka Michael J. Coleman
(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on
August 12, 2015, which is currently before the Court for
screening. Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before the
Magistrate Judge for all purposes. (Doc. 6.)
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(A)(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss
v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Courts are required to liberally construe pro se prisoner
complaints. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97
S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976).
is currently a state prisoner in custody at California State
Prison, Corcoran, California. His complaint concerns events
that occurred while he was housed at Wasco State Prison.
Plaintiff names the following Defendants: (1) Correctional
Officer L. Lozano, (2) Correctional Officer J. Loveall, (3)
Correctional Officer P. Maldonado, (4) Correctional Sergeant
Holland, (5) Correctional Sergeant Castro, and (6) Warden
Davies. All Defendants are being sued in their individual
Beating and Treatment of Plaintiff
alleges that in June 2015 he was approached by inmates in
Wasco State Prison reception, and they told him he had to
“lock up” which meant to tell the Correctional
Officers that Plaintiff’s life is in immediate danger
and he needed to go to solitary confinement. Plaintiff told
the second watch correctional officer that his life was in
danger, but instead he was just moved to another building.
Plaintiff was threatened again in a note and he filed an
emergency 602 along with the note. Plaintiff alleges that he
had been stabbed at another institution, so he was alarmed.
alleges that his programming includes mental health treatment
and group therapy which happens in the same building as where
the initial threats occurred. He alleges he was removed from
the treatment because of the threats. Plaintiff alleges he
was threatened again and was moved to building 4, but not put
into protective custody. He submitted an emergency 602 again.
Plaintiff alleges he told his case manager, Defendant
Holland, of the threats and told classification of the
threats. Plaintiff alleges he was not moved into protective
custody and they moved one of the inmates who threatened him
to his same building.
alleges he was beaten, kicked, and stabbed by four Mexicans.
Plaintiff does not allege the date when this occurred.
Plaintiff alleges that staff was sitting 15 feet from the
incident and had a clear view that Plaintiff was being beaten
up, yet did not intervene to stop the beating. He was taken
to the hospital and an MRI showed that 2 pieces of his
vertebra were broken off. When plaintiff was released from
the hospital months later, he went back and “they put
me back on the same yard.” Plaintiff told the sergeant
that he was just in that yard and it was not safe because of
his enemies. He was placed on the same yard where his enemies
were located anyway. He told a sergeant and a correctional
officer he was not safe on the yard but he was placed there
alleges his classification is “race only” but he
was erroneously placed with a cellmate of a different race.
His cellmate, of a different race, attacked him in his cell
and cut him and threw hot water on him.
indicates that he had sued the Warden in 2007 for loss of
property. Plaintiff alleges that staff was not happy with him
because of that suit and therefore he was not placed in
Other Incidents at ...