United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a California prisoner at Kern Valley State Prison, filed this
civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against officials at
Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), where
plaintiff was formerly housed. He is granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons
discussed below, the complaint is ordered served upon
Standard of Review
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or 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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri
v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th
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." "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, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted).
Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does
not need detailed factual allegations, . . . 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, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations
omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."
Id. at 1974.
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 deprivation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that defendants Sergeant R. Gomez and Sergeant W.
Waterman, correctional officers at SVSP, placed him in
administrative segregation based upon falsified disciplinary
charges without adequate due process and in retaliation for
filing administrative grievances against prison officials.
When liberally construed, these allegations state cognizable
claims against defendants for violating his constitutional
right to due process and hid rights under the First
reasons set out above, it is hereby ordered as follows:
clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall
serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint
with all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon
defendants Sergeant R. Gomez and Sergeant W. Waterman at
Salinas Valley State Prison. A courtesy copy of the complaint