United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner who is currently incarcerated at California
State Prison-Solano (“CSP-Solano”), has filed a
pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, stemming from a July 18, 2014 incident during
which excessive force was used against him while he had been
previously incarcerated at the Santa Rita County Jail
(“SRCJ”). Plaintiff, who is an African American,
further alleges that “the excessive force in which he
was subjected was predicate[d] on a racial animus in
violation of 42 [U.S.C.] § 1985 in which Caucasian
deputies conspired to assault plaintiff based on race.”
Dkt. 1 at 3.
names the following Defendants from the Alameda County
Sheriff's Office: Sheriff Gregory Ahern; Deputy Sheriff
Jenkins; Lieutenant C. Nobriga; Sergeant R. MacIntire;
“Sheriff's Deputies John Does (1-6)”; and
“Chief Medical Officer (CMO) John Doe (7).”
Id. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary
has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which will be granted in a separate written
is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are
alleged to have occurred at SRCJ, which is located in this
judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Injunctive Relief Claims
mentioned above, Plaintiff seeks both injunctive relief as
well as monetary damages. The jurisdiction of the federal
courts depends on the existence of a “case or
controversy” under Article III of the Constitution.
PUC v. FERC, 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). A
claim is considered moot if it has lost its character as a
present, live controversy, and if no effective relief can be
granted: “Where the question sought to be adjudicated
has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the
complaint, no justiciable controversy is presented.”
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968). Where
injunctive relief is involved, questions of mootness are
determined in light of the present circumstances. See
Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 528 (9th Cir. 1996).
inmate has been transferred to another prison and there is no
reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that he
will again be subjected to the prison conditions from which
he seeks injunctive relief, the claim for injunctive relief
should be dismissed as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64
F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir. 1995). A claim that the inmate
might be re-transferred to the prison where the injury
occurred is too speculative to overcome mootness.
seeks injunctive relief to remedy his alleged injuries
stemming from various constitutional violations during his
previous incarceration at SRCJ. However, Plaintiff has since
been transferred to CSP-Solano. Because Plaintiff is no
longer incarcerated at SRCJ, his claims for injunctive relief
based on his confinement at SRCJ are DISMISSED as moot. The
Court now proceeds to review Plaintiff's remaining claims
for monetary damages.
Claims for Monetary Damages
Standard of Review
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).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements, namely that: (1) a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated, and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
Eighth Amendment Claims
prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment, including physical abuse by guards. Whenever
prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial
inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort
to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and
sadistically to cause ...