United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED,
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NOS. 1, 14) ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 15) THIRTY (30) DAY
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Antonio Martinez (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
(ECF No. 11)
complaint, filed on September 30, 2016, as amended on
November 17, 2016, is currently before the court for
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),
(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . .
.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a
plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive
screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially plausible,
which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court
to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United
States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.
2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted
unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with
liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility
standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949
(quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison
(“PVSP”) in Coalinga, California. The events in
the complaint are alleged to have occurred at PVSP. Plaintiff
names the following Defendants: (1-3) three transportation
guards of California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and (4) CDCR. Plaintiff
alleges as follows:
16, 2016 Plaintiff arrived by bus at PVSP. The bus was parked
in front of the Receiving and Release building. While
Plaintiff and another inmate were being led off the bus, the
bus moved forward, causing Plaintiff, the other inmate, and
an unknown guard to be thrown off their feet. The Plaintiff
was wearing handcuffs, belly chains, and feet shackles at the
time. Plaintiff sustained multiple injuries, including a
re-injury to his recently operated-on right Achilles tendon.
His injuries were documented within ten minutes of the
accident. These transportation guards failed to communicate
and did not follow procedures while Plaintiff was being
escorted down the aisle of the bus. The guards failed to
provide a reasonable amount of safety.
was injured while being escorted off of the bus. Because of
his recent surgery, and the abrupt fall while being
incapacitated with handcuffs, belly chains and ankle
shackles, Plaintiff immediately recognized the extreme pain
and re-injury to his Achilles tendon. Although Plaintiff
suffered several cuts and abrasions, his primary concern was
the re-injury. Plaintiff stated this to the guards while they
were arguing over miscommunication. Plaintiff asked to be
attended to by medical staff immediately. Plaintiff's
pleas were ignored. After sustaining a severe re-injury and
multiple other injuries, these two unknown guards lifted
Plaintiff up and moved him against his will. The guards
without any medical training allegedly violated
Plaintiff's right to medical care by lifting him up and
arrival inside Receiving and Release, Plaintiff was sent to
an examination room. As his attending nurse was documenting
his outward injuries, and was inquiring about his fall on the
bus and recent surgery, “unknown guard ‘c'
intimidated the nurse to quit asking questions and process
[Plaintiff] immediately[, ] thereby denying [Plaintiff's]
right to reasonable medical care.”
requests $250, 000 in compensation. Plaintiff also wants the
three unknown guards to never be able to “treat another
prisoner this way.” Plaintiff wants CDCR to increase
training on transportation and on the movement of injured
Deficiencies of Claims
Failure to Protect
alleges that he was injured when he fell on a prisoner
transportation bus began moving while he was being escorted
down the bus's aisle.
Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of
punishment and from inhumane conditions of confinement.
Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.
2006). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and
harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with food,
clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal
safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33
(1994) (quotations omitted). Thus, prison officials have a
duty under the Eighth Amendment to take reasonable steps to
protect inmates from physical harm. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994);
Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.
establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must
establish that prison officials were “deliberately
indifferent to a serious threat to the inmate's
safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. This showing
involves subjective and objective components: “the
official must both be aware of facts from which the inference
could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and [the official] must also draw the
inference.” Id. at 837. The question under the
Eighth “Amendment is whether prison officials, acting
with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a
sufficiently substantial ‘risk of serious damage to his
future health . . . .'” Id. at 843 ...