United States District Court, N.D. California
HENRY C. HAYES, Plaintiff,
MAURICIO MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE; ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE
A DISPOSITIVE MOTION OR NOTICE REGARDING SUCH MOTION;
INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK DKT. NO. 8
WILLIAM H. ORRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Henry Hayes has stated Eighth Amendment claims against
various persons at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Court
directs defendants to file in response to the complaint a
dispositive motion, or a notice regarding such motion, on or
before January 27, 2020.
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 in 2019 staff at Pelican Bay State Prison forced
him to wear prison-issued underwear, which contains synthetic
materials to which he is allergic, even though he prefers to
wear cotton underwear he has purchased. When liberally
construed, Hayes has stated Eighth Amendment claims against
Dr. Mauricio Martinez; A. Harris, a prison guard; D. Nelson,
a correctional sergeant; Fillipia, a correctional sergeant;
Tiffany Greiger, a nurse; Dr. Jacobsen; and S. Manion, a
other claims are DISMISSED. Hayes's claims against Rhoda
Nasr, a nurse, are DISMISSED. Nasr merely filed a request to
have Hayes medically evaluated. This does not state a claim
under the Eighth Amendment. His claims against Jim Robertson,
the warden, are DISMISSED. There is no respondeat superior
liability under § 1983, see Taylor v.
List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), which means
that a person is not automatically held responsible simply
because he or she is a supervisor of an employee who commits
a wrong. It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff
must show that the supervisor “participated in or
directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed
to act to prevent them.” Id. (emphasis added).
There is nothing in the complaint that indicates personal
knowledge or involvement.
foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
Clerk of the Court shall issue summons and the United States
Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of
the complaint in this matter (Dkt. No. 1), all attachments
thereto, and a copy of this order upon the following persons
at Pelican Bay State Prison: Dr. Mauricio Martinez; A.
Harris, a prison guard; D. Nelson, a correctional sergeant;
Fillipia, a correctional sergeant; Tiffany Greiger, a nurse;
Dr. Jacobsen; and S. Manion, a correctional ...