United States District Court, E.D. California
FRANKIE L. GERMANY, Plaintiff,
M. COELHO, et al, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Frankie L. Germany is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff
consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate
Judge on March 21, 2017. Local Rule 302.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed January
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that “fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
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)).
Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant
personally participated in the deprivation of his rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo
County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled
to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is
now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121
(9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 678-79;
Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th
Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has
acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts
that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's
liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
December 5, 2016, correctional officer Coelho made false
allegations against Plaintiff and charged him with battery on
a peace officer. Coelho had three inmates attack Plaintiff in
the dayroom after he sprayed Plaintiff with pepper spray.
Coelho and his co-workers then punched and kicked Plaintiff
in the face, back and ribs, and continued to beat him after
he was placed in handcuffs. After Plaintiff was taken out of
the building, he was slammed on the ground face first and
Coelho hit Plaintiff in the face and yelled profanity at him.
Sergeant Hanson threatened Plaintiff and lied on his report
about the incident. Officer P. Ward also beat Plaintiff and
failed to decontaminate him after the use of the pepper
spray. Officer Garcia-Fernandez used his hands and feet to
beat up Plaintiff.