United States District Court, E.D. California
DOMINIQUE D. BAKER, Plaintiff,
HUMBERTO GERMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM FOUND
TO BE COGNIZABLE [ECF No. 11]
Dominique Baker is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff has not consented or declined to United States
Magistrate Judge jurisdiction; however, this matter was
referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed February 6, 2017.
Court is required to screen Plaintiff's complaint and
dismiss the case, in whole or in part, if the Court
determines it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 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 (2009) (citing
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)), and courts “are not required to indulge
unwarranted inferences, ” Doe I v. Walmart Stores,
Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual
allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally
construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor,
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir.
2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir.
2010), but Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible
to survive screening, 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; Moss v. U.S. 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.
April 23, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., Plaintiff was inside his
assigned cell at Corcoran State Prison. Defendant
correctional officers Humberto German and Phillip Holguin
approached Plaintiff's cell and ordered him to be
handcuffed and escorted to the building holding cage in order
to receive his medication. Plaintiff underwent an unclothed
body search, and was handcuffed and escorted to the holding
cage. After Plaintiff was un-cuffed, he began exchanging
words with Defendants. While exchanging words, Defendant
Humberto German removed his state issued pepper spray
canister and began spraying Plaintiff in his face and torso
area. Humberto German continued spraying Plaintiff until the
spray canister went empty. Plaintiff went into shock and was
not able to see and breathe. Plaintiff then heard Defendant
German order Defendant Phillip Holguin to pepper spray
Plaintiff. Phillip Holguin began spraying Plaintiff while he
stood holding the steel bars, and he continued to spray
Plaintiff until the canister was empty.
was examined by a nurse and sustained serious injuries to his
eyes and a chemical reaction to his skin.
this incident, Plaintiff did not talk with the prison
arresting agency. Plaintiff was held inside a holding cage
and there was no investigative service unit at the scene to
take photographs or advise Plaintiff of his Miranda rights.
Plaintiff was never asked to make a statement regarding the
Humberto German and Phillip Holguin wrote false reports
claiming that Plaintiff grabbed German's wrist while
inside the holding cage.
later, Plaintiff awake to prison officials ordering him to
get dressed for Court regarding the incident on April 23,
2011, with Humberto German and Phillip Holguin. Plaintiff was
taken to Kings County Superior Court and charged with a
violation of California Penal Code section 4501.5 (battery by
a prisoner on non-confined person). Plaintiff was ultimately
found guilty of battery and sentenced to a consecutive term
of 27 years-to-life.