United States District Court, N.D. California
ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Plaintiff,
M. PIZANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge.
a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this
federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in
which he raises claims against prison guards at Salinas
Valley State Prison.
third amended complaint (Dkt. No. 26) states cognizable
claims. Therefore, in response to the operative complaint,
defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or
notice regarding such motion on or before August 7, 2017,
unless an extension is granted. The Court further directs
that defendants adhere to the notice provisions detailed in
Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.
Standard of Review
initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must
dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Pro se
pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court
“is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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 the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that in October 2014, Salinas Valley prison guard M.
Pizano sprayed a dose of pepper spray into plaintiff's
“bag of beans” during a cell search in
retaliation for complaining about prison staff conduct.
Plaintiff, who did not know of Pizano's act, later ate
the contaminated beans, which resulted in injury to him. When
liberally construed, this states cognizable First and Eighth
did not see Pizano's alleged act. He bases his
allegations on “information and belief” that two
prison porters observed Pizano. Allegations based merely on
“information and belief” may be sufficient to
state a claim. However, in order for his claim to survive
summary judgment, plaintiff will have to obtain evidentiary
support for his allegations.
also alleges Salinas Valley prison guards J. Lopez, E.
Medina, and C. Martella failed to respond to his grievance
about M. Pizano. When liberally construed, these allegations