United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF SERVICE
A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge.
Gerrel Looney, a state prisoner at the California Men's
Colony, has filed a pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the violation of
his constitutional rights by Correctional Officers L.
Gutierrez, M. Pastel and J. Taylor, employees at Pelican Bay
State Prison, where Plaintiff was previously confined.
Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge over this action.
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted in a separate order. The Court now
reviews Plaintiff's complaint.
Preliminary Review of Complaint
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks 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 that
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. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007).
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 violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
may be imposed on an individual defendant under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the
defendant's actions both actually and proximately caused
the deprivation of a federally protected right. Lemire v.
Cal. Dept. Corrections & Rehabilitation, 756 F.3d
1062, 1074 (9th Cir. 2013); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d
628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A person deprives another of a
constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he
does an affirmative act, participates in another's
affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which
the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633.
complaint alleges the following: On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff
was brutally beaten by Defendants Gutierrez and Taylor while
he was handcuffed. His injuries include a chipped tooth, a
cut on his lip requiring stitches, a slash on his right arm
and severe pain in his head and back. His prescription
eyeglasses were broken. Defendant Pastel was present but did
not stop Gutierrez and Taylor from beating Plaintiff.
construed, the allegations appear to give rise to a
cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force against
the three Defendants.
on the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and
Request for Waiver of Service of Summons, two copies of the
Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint (docket
no. 1), and all attachments thereto, a copy of this Order and
a copy of the form “Consent or Declination to
Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” to Pelican Bay State
Prison Correctional Officers L. Gutierrez, Badge #56660, M.
Pastel, Badge #51913 and J. Taylor, Badge #64724. This
form can also be found at
www.cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. The Clerk shall