United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR United States District Judge
an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”)
in Soledad, California, filed this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in a separate order. His complaint is now before the Court
for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
to Plaintiff being housed in cell D1-103, Sgts. Days and
Garcia, and Officer Torres and Chin were aware of the
unsanitary conditions in cell D1-103, and were aware that
these conditions posed a risk to inmate health and safety.
Dkt. No. 1 at 5.
16, 2016, when Plaintiff was first escorted to cell D1-103 by
Officer Torres and Chin, he noticed that standing water
covered the entire cell floor. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff
informed Officers Torres and Chin of the standing water, and
they responded that a work order would be put in to fix the
problem. Id. Officer Chin returned ten minutes later
with a cotton blanket and instructed Plaintiff to use the
blanket to keep the water in the cell. Id.
June 16, 2016 to June 21, 2016, cell D1-103 was flooded and
did not contain a working toilet, which subjected Plaintiff
to constant and close exposure to his own accumulated urine
and feces. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. During this time period,
Plaintiff repeatedly asked Sgts. Days and Garcia, and
Officers Torres, Chin, Machuca, Cortina, and Costillo to
address the unsanitary conditions in his cell. Id.
21, 2016, when Officer Cortina was passing out the evening
meal, Officer Cortina inquired about the smell coming from
Plaintiff's cell. Dkt. No. 1 at 4‒5. Plaintiff
replied that the smell was caused by the stagnant water
covering his cell floor and by the accumulated excrement in
his toilet. Id. Plaintiff asked Officer Cortina to
contact a plumber. Id. Officer Cortina left and
returned fifteen minutes later with a five gallon bucket of
water and instructed Plaintiff to pour the water rapidly into
the toilet which induced a manual flush. Id. at 5.
Although this manual flush did not completely clear the
toilet, it alleviated the smell. Id. That same day,