United States District Court, N.D. California
VERNON L. BELTON, Plaintiff,
J. GUTIERREZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Vernon Belton has stated Eighth Amendment claims against
guards and medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison. The
Court directs defendants to file in response to the complaint
a dispositive motion, or notice regarding such motion, on or
before October 21, 2019.
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.
See 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. See Id.
§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police
Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“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.” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court
“is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in
the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot
reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg
v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir.
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. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
alleges that on June 2, 2018 at Salinas Valley State Prison,
he was attacked by a fellow inmate while prison staff failed
to intervene. When liberally construed, Belton has stated
Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims against guards J.
Gutierez, A. Pola, and P. Gonzalez, and against psychiatric
technicians A. Camacho and Mayder.
alleges prison guard Roger Martinez denied him his due
process rights at a disciplinary hearing related to the
attack. When liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a due
process claim against Martinez.
also alleges physicians Phuc Lam and Tom Zewert provided
constitutionally inadequate medical care for the injuries
plaintiff suffered from the attack. When liberally construed,
Belton has stated Eighth Amendment claims against Lam and
other claims are dismissed. There is no respondeat superior
liability under § 1983 against supervisory defendants.
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Other than their supervisory status, no facts are alleged
against S. Williams (Correctional Captain) D. Bright (Chief
Physician), S. Gates (Chief of Appeals Branch), Bayode
Omosaiye (CEO of Health Care Services), and Tammy Foss
(Warden). And there is no constitutional right to require
officers to file incident reports, so ...