Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mosley v. Stewart

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 21, 2017

QUINCY MOSLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
S. STEWART, Defendant.

         ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO ASSIGN MATTER TO A DISTRICT JUDGE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: ALLOW PLAINTIFF TO PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIMS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS AND DISMISS OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE (ECF NO. 9) FOURTEEN (14) DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE

          MICHAEL J. SENG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction (ECF No. 7). No other parties have appeared in the action.

         On September 19, 2017, this Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and found it stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Stewart, but no other cognizable claims. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was given the option to either file an amended complaint or to proceed only on the claim found to be cognizable. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (ECF No. 9), and it is before the Court for screening.

         I. Screening Requirement

         The 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, malicious, ” or 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. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         II. Pleading Standard

         A 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 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiffs must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78.

         Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). To state a claim under section 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

         Under section 1983 the Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

         III. Plaintiff's Allegations

         Plaintiff is incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison, where the acts giving rise to his complaint occurred. Plaintiff names as Defendants (1) S. Steward, Correctional Officer (2) Castillo, Correctional Officer, and (3) Sergeant Ventura, Correctional Officer.

         His allegations may be summarized essentially as follows.

         On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff was involved in an altercation with two other inmates in the facility holding cell. Defendant Stewart and non-party T. Rocha came to the doorway of the holding cells and yelled for the inmates to get down. Before Plaintiff could comply, Stewart pepper sprayed Plaintiff and twice hit him in the back of the head with the pepper spray canister. Plaintiff lost consciousness. When he regained focus, he was being dragged into the hallway. There, Plaintiff was on his stomach and Stewart sat on Plaintiff's back. Defendant Castillo used his baton to hit Plaintiff on his legs and buttocks. Plaintiff was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.