United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
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).
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).
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. §
Allegations in the Complaint
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
request for relief, plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive
and nominal damages. ECF No. 1 at 32.