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.

Germany v. Coelho

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 27, 2017

FRANKIE L. GERMANY, Plaintiff,
v.
M. COELHO, Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ON CLAIM FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE [ECF No. 12]

         Plaintiff Frankie L. Germany is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on March 21, 2017. Local Rule 302.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed June 5, 2017.

         I.

         SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, ” or that “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         A 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010).

         Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         II.

         FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         Plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated when prison official used excessive force against him and acted with deliberate indifference to his safety. On December 5, 2016, while detained in North Kern State Prison, (“North Kern”) Plaintiff claims three Correctional Officers and one Sergeant used excessive force causing injuries to Plaintiff. Throughout the day and on a couple of instances, Plaintiff spoke with Officer Coelho and requested a cell move. Plaintiff reasons that his request for a cell move was warranted as Plaintiff sustained a broken arm by falling off the top bunk. Upon denying Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff then asked to speak with a Sergeant, to which Officer Coelho replied, “hell no.” As such, Officer Coelho denied both requests. Later, during meal time in the dayroom, Plaintiff asked Officer Coelho if he could speak with a Sergeant, where Officer Coelho began to pepper spray Plaintiff without provocation. Immediately after, Officer Coelho and his co-workers then proceeded to kick and punch Plaintiff while he was on the ground. Defendants picked Plaintiff off the ground and proceeded in handcuffing him. While being escorted out of the building, Plaintiff was body slammed on the ground and was beat again. Defendant proceeded to pick Plaintiff off the ground and continued to escort Plaintiff to the program office where he was placed in a cell. Plaintiff named the following Defendants and claims they were also involved in this incident, Officer P. Ward, Officer Garcia-Fernandez, and Sergeant Hanson.

         Plaintiff further claims, while detained at the program office he was treated with deliberate indifference by being denied medical care by nurse Negre. Nurse Negre was on duty at the D yard facility and did not properly treated Plaintiff's injuries, which consisted of: bleeding, bruises, scratches, and a previous injury of a broken arm. Nurse Negre looked at Plaintiff and said, “he was not hurt too bad”, and proceeded to walk away.

         Plaintiff is requesting a trial and monetary damages.

         III.

...


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.