Williams v. Lozano

          ORDER SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 1)

         I. Screening Requirement and Standard

         Plaintiff 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.)

         The 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).

         A 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).

         To 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).

         II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

         Plaintiff 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 capacities.

         A. Beating and Treatment of Plaintiff

         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.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 anyway.

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 protective custody.

         B. Other Incidents at ...