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.

Giles v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 15, 2019

OSSIE GILES, Plaintiff,
v.
RON DAVIS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE

          YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks monetary damages.

         Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which will be granted in a separate written Order.

         Plaintiff 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.

         The Court now conducts its initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

         Venue 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).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Standard of Review

         A 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).

         To 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).

         B. Legal Claims

         Plaintiff 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.

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.