United States District Court, E.D. California
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)
Raymond Angline 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 first amended complaint,
filed on October 15, 2019.
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).
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
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 as
true only for the purpose of the sua sponte
screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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.
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
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
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 ...