United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF
Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. His complaint is before the Court for screening.
(ECF No. 1.) He has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction.
(ECF No. 6.) No other parties have appeared.
forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any
filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 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 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cty., 811
F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
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 set forth “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not.
Iqbal, at 677-78.
is detained at Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”).
He names Unit Supervisor Ian Young, presumably a CSH
employee, as the sole defendant.
allegations may be summarized essentially as follows:
February 28, 2017, Defendant Young used “illegal
physical force” when he “twisted”
Plaintiff's arms behind Plaintiff's back. Plaintiff
claims that Defendant Young transported Plaintiff to a room
Plaintiff “did not want to be in, ” and that
Defendant is “a threat” to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
states that he told Defendant to call officers if he believed
Plaintiff was breaking any rule by sitting on the floor and
reading a book. Plaintiff claims he spoke to Defendant in a
“calm, cool, collected conversational
voice/tone.” Plaintiff makes no explicit mention of any
physical injury in his complaint. Plaintiff also notes that a
similar incident occurred between him and Defendant on July
26, 2014, but he provides no further details about that
seeks injunctive relief, asking the Court to
“remove” Defendant Young from having
“access” to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asks the
Court to arrest Defendant Young, claiming that “the
officers and administration here cannot or will not restrain