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.

Jones v. Wyrick

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 8, 2017

WYDELL JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
T. WYRICK, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

         The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

         I. Allegations in the Complaint

         While an inmate at the California Health Care Facility (CHCF) in Stockton plaintiff was assigned to the Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) for inmates with severe mental disorders. ECF No. 1 at 13. He also participated in the Inmate Mens Advisory Counsel (sic) (IMAC). Id. The allegations in plaintiff's complaint can be grouped into four different categories of claims.

         First, plaintiff alleges that he was threatened with the use of pepper spray by defendant Wyrick on November 24, 2015. While the facts and circumstances surrounding this incident are scattered throughout the 34 page complaint, it appears that defendant Wyrick brandished and threatened to pepper spray plaintiff in order to scare him and/or stop him from pursuing inmate grievances and legal advocacy efforts as a member of the IMAC. ECF No. 1 at 11. Defendant Barrett was present during this incident and “just stood there without saying a word.” Id. at 23. When threatened with the pepper spray, plaintiff “became scared and confused and started experiencing high physical anxiety and psychiatric post traumatic and emotional distress….” Id. at 24.

         In the second category of claims, plaintiff alleges that the shower facilities for all EOPF inmates at CHCF were unsanitary. ECF No. 1 at 7. Specifically, plaintiff contends that they were also being used to “urinate and deficate (sic) in and… smelled… and contained smeared residue of feces on the walls.” Id.

         Third, plaintiff alleges that EOP inmates were issued disciplinary chronos for missing a single treatment session in violation of long-established CDCR regulations. These chronos were placed in plaintiff's C-file and were therefore accessible to the parole board. ECF No. 1 at 8.

         In the last category of allegations, plaintiff complains generally about the inmate grievance process. In reviewing grievances pertaining to the November 2015 pepper spray incident, plaintiff alleges that defendants J. Prudhel and J. Barretto willingly colluded and engaged in a “code of silence.” ECF No. 1 at 9, 19.

         The only common thread linking all of these allegations is the prison in which they occurred. The named defendants include various correctional staff at CHCF including two correctional officers: T. Wyrick and Barrett; a Watch Commander, Lt. J. Prudhel; an Assistant Warden, J. Barretto; and, a Correctional Captain, C. Shirley. Id. at 9, 19.

         In his request for relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and nominal damages. ECF No. 1 at 32.

         II. Analysis

         A. ...


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.