United States District Court, E.D. California
MONICO J. QUIROGA, Plaintiff,
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL
OF THIS ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(ECF No. 1.) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Monico J. Quiroga (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
complaint, filed on January 3, 2017, is currently before the
Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.)
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).
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 High Desert State Prison in
Susanville, California. The events in the complaint are
alleged to have occurred at Kern County Jail. Plaintiff
appears to name the following Defendants: (1) Donny
Youngblood; (2) Sheriff Detention Deputy on duty the night of
September 26, 2015 at Kern County Jail; and (3) the Kern
County Sheriff's Department. The complaint states, in
total, the following:
Sherifs Deputie's have a right and duty to intervene to
prevent inmates from setting in motions forces that will
cause their own deaths. A risk of suicide by an inmate is a
serious medical need protected by the Eighth Amen. On
9/26/2015, an inmate at Central Receiving Fac. asked Sherif
Detention Deputy on A.3.4 to place him on suicide watch how
every Sheriff Deputie refused him that right and he hung his
self to death. Where the harm at issue is a suicide, the
second, subjective component of the claim requires a dual
showing that the defendant: (1) subjectively knew the inmate
was at substantial risk of committing suicide, (2)
intentionally disregarded the risk. By Sherif Detention
Deputy refuseing suicide watch to Pretrial Detainee causeing
serious injury resulting in Death. Refer to Citizens
Complaint and internal affairs interview conducted by Sherifs
Entity of Kern County 1350 Norris Rd. Bakersfield CA 93308 on
Sept. 26, 2015. I declare under penalty of perjury the
foregoing is true and correct.
(ECF No. 1, p. 4-5.)
prays for relief in the form of a preliminary injunction,
monetary damages, and a declaratory judgement.
is alleging a violation of another inmate's right. The
privilege to proceed pro se is personal to the litigant and
does not extend to other parties or entities. See Simon
v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.
2008). Although a person who is not an attorney may appear
pro se on his own behalf, see 28 U.S.C. § 1654,
“he has no authority to appear ...