United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF PARTIAL SERVICE; DISMISSING ONE CLAIM WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND
TIGAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”),
filed this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before
the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has
paid the filing fee.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an 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
which 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. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“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)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
November 6, 2013, Plaintiff and other inmates filed a group
appeal against Officer Truvino (who is not a named defendant)
for attempting to incite racial tensions between Black and
Hispanic inmates. ECF No. 1 at 8. Around November 25-29,
2013, correctional officials conducted a mass investigation
and mass interviews of the inmates who filed the Truvino
group appeal. Id.
December 4, 2013, under the guise of a cell search,
Defendants Officers Nichols and Carraway trashed
Plaintiff's cell. ECF No. 1 at 8. Twenty minutes later,
also under the guise of a cell search, Officer Lacy led more
than a dozen correctional officers into Plaintiff's cell
section, and they raided the section, and trashed all cells
in the section. Id. at 8‒9.
December 7, 2013,  Plaintiff and inmate Ramirez questioned
Officer Nichols about the December 4, 2013 cell raids.
Officer Nichols informed them that the prison program office
was “infuriated” by the high number of grievances
originating from Plaintiff's housing unit (B-7); that the
program office attributed the high number of grievances to a
lack of communication between floor staff and prisoners; and
that the high number of grievances made it look as if Officer
Nichols had no control over the prisoners. ECF No. 1 at 9.
Officer Nichols told Plaintiff that the Truvino appellants
should have held their tongues and let it go, which Plaintiff
interpreted as a warning that the inmates should not have
filed the Truvino appeal.