United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State
Prison (“SQSP”) filed a pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983. He seeks monetary
has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which will be granted in a separate written
has named the following Defendants at SQSP: Warden Ron Davis;
Associate Wardens G. Forncrook and R. Bloomfield; Captain J.
Arnold; Lieutenants B. VanMastrigt, R. Shelton and M. Nelson;
Sergeants J. Sangmaster and Madding; Correctional Counselor
II A. Maxfield; Chief Disciplinary Officer Y. Samara;
Correctional Officers F. Jaugan, and J. Cartwright; Office of
Appeals Chief M. Voong; and Psychologist R. Pearl.
Court now conducts its initial review of the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
is proper because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's
claims in his complaint are alleged to have occurred at SQSP,
which is located in this judicial district. See 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
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 officer or employee of a governmental entity.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 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).
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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
42, 48 (1988).
claims that on November 13, 2017, he filed a 602 inmate
appeal, log no. SQ-A-17-3257, against Defendant Cartwright
for “disrespect and defamation [by] calling Plaintiff a
pedophil[e]” during a confrontation on November 8,
2017. Dkt. 1 at 8. Plaintiff claims that he exhausted this
appeal to the third level of review, and that his appeals
were “denied.” Id. at 8-14.
claims that eight days after the confrontation, on November
16, 2017, he was placed in administrative segregation
(“ad seg”) by Defendants VanMastrigt as well as
Classification Committee members Defendants Forncrook and
Maxfield “pending a [Rules Violation Report
(“RVR”)] 115 outcome written by [Defendants]
Cartwright whos[e] description of the incident was [en]titled
[‘]force or violence threatening a peace officer[']
[and] also [alleged] a pattern of blatant disrespect towards
him on multiple occasions [including] 6-23-2017, 7-12-2017,
7-27-2017 and 9-16-2017.” Id. at 6, 15-18.
Plaintiff claims that there was “no documentation of
these accusations . . . .” Id. at 15-18.
Plaintiff claims that the charges on the RVR were
“false.” Id. at 17. Plaintiff adds that
Defendant Jaugan filed a ...