United States District Court, E.D. California
RONNIE G. YOUNG, Plaintiff,
DEPUTY LEE, et al., Defendants.
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state 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).
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the motion 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).
Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is
currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not
assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated for monthly payments of
twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited
to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments shall
be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency 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. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks
an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v.
Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The
court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it
is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where
the factual contentions are clearly baseless.
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is
whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded,
has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v.
Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989);
Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a
complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,
” “labels and conclusions” or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, “[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).
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief
has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.
2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Allegations in the Complaint
an inmate at the San Joaquin County Jail awaiting transport
to state prison, plaintiff alleges that he was beaten by
various deputies on January 19, 2016. Plaintiff is a hearing
impaired inmate who uses hearing aids in both ears. ECF No. 1
at 28. On the date of the incident, plaintiff alleges that
“a number of sheriffs/officers, came to the cell
stating something I could not make out without my hearing
aids[.] I flushed the toilet and was jerked off the toilet
with my pants down and was brutally beaten by deputies
ledesma, lee, martinez, and others[. D]eputy lee was hitting
me with either a baton or flashlight delivering especially
injurious blows to my head, face, neck, spine, legs, ribs,
front torso and arms.” Id. Plaintiff further
alleges that his immediate requests for medical attention
were ignored, but plaintiff does not identify any defendant
who was responsible for refusing him medical treatment. After
plaintiff was transferred to a state prison, he received an
x-ray indicating that two of his ribs were fractured. ECF No.
1 at 14.
complaint states a cognizable claim for the excessive use of
force under the Eighth Amendment and 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b) against defendants Deputy Lee, Deputy Ledesma, and
Deputy Martinez. If the allegations of the complaint are
proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on
the merits of this action.
plaintiff does not identify any individual defendant
responsible for the alleged denial and/or delay of medical
treatment following the incident, the court finds that
plaintiff has failed to allege an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim. However, the court will grant leave to
amend this claim.
the court notes that there are no allegations against
Sergeant S. Williams who is identified as a defendant in the
complaint. Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of
particularity overt acts which defendant Williams engaged in
that support plaintiff's claim. Jones v. Cmty. Redev.
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). The court
will grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint with
respect to defendant Sergeant S. Williams.
Deliberate Indifference to ...