United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a Yolo County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff
seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has
requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this
court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters in
this action before a United States Magistrate Judge.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency
to collect twenty percent of the preceding month's income
credited to plaintiff's prison trust account and forward
it to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
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 fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
court has conducted the required screening and finds that
plaintiff's complaint states a claim against defendant
Herrera upon which relief could be granted arising under the
Eighth Amendment for excessive force as alleged by plaintiff
in claim II. In all other respects, plaintiff's complaint
fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed
only on the claim identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the
deficiencies with respect to other claims in an amended
plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is informed as follows:
original complaint is, at times, impossible to understand
because it is indecipherable. In an amended complaint,
plaintiff should take care to write legibly and in a manner
which can be understood.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2),
plaintiff may join in one action as many claims as he has
against one defendant. Other defendants can be joined to
claims, but claims which are only against other defendants
generally must be brought in a separate action.
order to state a claim for damages, plaintiff must allege
facts indicating a causal connection between the actions of a
defendant and the injury sustained by plaintiff. See
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir.
1998). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a
defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation.
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore,
vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in
civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board
of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code
provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with
respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this
title, . . . until such administrative remedies as are
available are exhausted.”
Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner's serious
medical needs may constitute a violation of the
prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is
liable for such a violation only when injury occurs as a
result of the individual's deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs. Id.
Prison officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates
for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo v.
Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a
prisoner's First Amendment rights are necessarily
curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires a
finding that “the prison authorities' retaliatory
action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional
institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve
such goals.” Id. at 532. The plaintiff bears
the burden of pleading ...