United States District Court, N.D. California
NOLAN F. LEONARDO, Plaintiff,
DEPUTY KAIWAI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE
M. RYU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
who is currently in custody at the San Francisco County Jail
#5 in San Bruno, California, has filed a pro se
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983, alleging
the use of excessive force against him during an incident in
has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, and this
matter has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
Dkts. 3, 5.
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will
be granted in a separate written Order. Dkts. 2, 6.
is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are
alleged to have occurred in San Francisco County, which is
located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C.
complaint, Plaintiff lists the following officers from the
San Francisco County Sheriff's Department: Deputy Kaiwai;
Lt. DeGuzman; and unnamed Sheriff's Deputies. Dkt. 1 at
2-3. Under the “Relief” section, he states as
I want the court to order an investigation on the assault
that took place in Sept. and I want every deputy involved to
be charged accordingly. DeGuzman should not be a
[lieutenant]. Kaiwai should be held responsible for my
Id. at 3. It is unclear whether he seeks monetary
damages for the aforementioned “permanent
injury.” See id.
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: (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. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).