Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coats v. De Anzo

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 28, 2017

ROBERT M. COATS, Plaintiff,
v.
J. DE ANZO, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION; INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK

          JOSEPH C. SPERO Chief Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleges that prison guards at Salinas Valley State Prison violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they used excessive force on him.

         The first amended complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims. Therefore, in response to the operative complaint (Dkt. No. 9), defendants are directed to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion on or before August 7, 2017. The Court further directs that defendants adhere to the notice provisions detailed in Sections 2.a and 10 of the conclusion of this order.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         In its 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. 1988).

         A “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. 1994).

         B. Legal Claims

         Plaintiff alleges that Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officers J. De Anzo and M. Hernandez used excessive force against him in May 19, 2015. When liberally construed, plaintiff has stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment.

         CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

         1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form and the United States Marshal shall serve these forms, without prepayment of fees, along with a copy of the operative complaint in this matter (Dkt. No. 9), all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon J. De Anzo and M. Hernandez, both prison guards at Salinas Valley State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail courtesy copies of the operative complaint and this order to the California Attorney General's Office.

         2. On or before August 7, 2017, defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.