Anglin v. Pratti

          ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS ACTIONFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING ACTION PROCEED ONLY ON EXCESSIVE FORCE CLAIM AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ECF NO. 9)

         Plaintiff Raymond Angline is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint, filed on October 15, 2019.

         I.

         SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The 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).

         Prisoners 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.

         II.

         COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

         The Court accepts Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint as true only for the purpose of the sua sponte screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

         On February 20, 2018, Plaintiff was transferred to Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF) from the North Kern Reception Center to begin serving a nine year term for assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury.

         On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff attended an inmate classification committee hearing (ICC) and conveyed to members that he believed he did not meet the eligibility requirements for placement at SATF Facility C. SATF is a 180-degree design prison setting designed to house the most violent offenders. Plaintiff was eligible for a 270-degree design placement which is a prison setting that is not as violent as 180-degree. Defendants L. Arias and M. Pratti acknowledged that Plaintiff was eligible for 270-degree design placement. “However, at the time of initial transfer from reception” center “placement to a 270 was not available.”

         Plaintiff has a classification score of nineteen points. Level II facility placement shall be provided for prisoners who have a classification score of 19 to 36 points. Instead of placing Plaintiff into a Level II prison setting, he was placed in a Level IV 180-degree design prison which is the highest level of facility. Plaintiff asserts that he did not meet any of the administrative determinates for placement in a CDCR 180-degree design prison setting and did not have 60 points or more for Level IV placement. Plaintiff notified Defendants Arias and Pratt that he did not meet the administrative determinates for Level IV placement, and Plaintiff expressed that he was in fear for his safety. Plaintiff's concerns were ignored.

         On August 2, 2018, Plaintiff was violently attacked by three Level IV inmates with sharpened prison manufactured weapons, and suffered multiple puncture wounds. During the attack, Plaintiff yelled out for help to no avail. The ...