United States District Court, E.D. California
SCREENING ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF INTENT TO PROCEED ON
CLAIM FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE [ECF NO. 17]
Mark Hunt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
before the Court is Plaintiff's complaint, filed August
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 on
which relief may be granted, ” or that “seek
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint
must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . .”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not
required, but “[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) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff
must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated
in the deprivation of Plaintiff's rights. Jones v.
Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to
have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any
doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d
962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” falls short of satisfying
the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint
and first amended complaint as true only for the
purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
names D. Diaz, A. Velasquez, J. Brainard, G. Solorio, and K.
Reyes, as Defendants.
was beaten up by correctional officers at the 5:00 pill line
to take his court ordered medication.
Plaintiff came out, officers D. Diaz and A. Velasquez, at the
order of sergeant Brainard, attacked Plaintiff in the pill
line because he is Black and has numerous
“IEX” on his jacket. Defendants beat him with
his fists and batons for approximately eight minutes, saying
racial slurs because they looked into his central file and
discovered he is “IEX” status. Plaintiff was
trying to get away and push them off. Plaintiff suffered
bruises and cuts to his face which required four sutures.
requests that the criminal charges be dropped and to be fully
reimbursed for all the damage to his personal property, as
well as compensatory damages.