United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
TIGAR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison
(“SVSP”), filed this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate
order. His complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which 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 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
complaint names the following defendants: SVSP Correctional
Counselor II (“CCII”) Johnson, SVSP Dr. Elsaid,
SVSP Warden Muniz, and Sacramento County Superior Court
Judges Lucas, McCormick, and Sumner (collectively, the
“judge-defendants”). ECF No. 1
(“Compl.”) at 1-3.
complaint makes the following allegations. Plaintiff is
unlawfully in the custody of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). On
August 2018 and March 2019, the judge-defendants
discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race when they
found him incompetent to stand trial, sentenced him to the
Department of State, and ordered him medicated and
hospitalized if he refused to abandon his defense. Compl. at
4. Plaintiff filed five grievances alleging that the orders
issued by defendants Judge McCormick and Judge Sumner were
racially discriminatory. Id. Upon arriving at SVSP
hospital in March 2019, Plaintiff filed two grievances
alleging that the hospital was a threat to his health and
1, 2019, Plaintiff met with his Intra-Departmental Treatment
Team (“IDTT”) Committee. Defendants CCII Johnson
and SVSP Dr. Elsaid are both on his IDTT. Compl. at 5. At the
meeting, Plaintiff was in mechanical arm restraints and
calmly seated. Id. Upon meeting Plaintiff, defendant
CCII Johnson said with aggression, “You are
Black!” Id. Plaintiff responded, “Fuck
you, stupid ass nigger bitch, don't call me that shit.
I'm Maya.” Id. Defendant CCII Johnson
responded, “What I said is not a reason to get mad, my
file said you are Black!” Id. Plaintiff told
Johnson that Black was not his heritage. Id.
Plaintiff became defensive because defendant CCII Johnson
knew from Plaintiff's file that “state
government[s] are racially discriminatory against him.”
Id. Plaintiff was then escorted back to his cell
without incident. Id.
3, 2019, SVSP Medical Tech Assistant Strimikis offered
Plaintiff psychotropic medication. Compl. at 5. Plaintiff
refused the medication because he had been housed at SVSP for
over four months without needing psychotropic medication.
Compl. at 6. MTA Strimikis informed Plaintiff that he had
been placed on an involuntary medication order and that if
Plaintiff refused the medication, it would be administered
intravenously. Id. Plaintiff stated that he was
unaware of any involuntary medication order. Id. Dr.
Elsaid gave Plaintiff a court order dated June 4, 2019 and
signed by Judge Lureas that ordered that Plaintiff be
involuntarily medicated. Id. Plaintiff claims that
the June 4, 2019 order and the attempt to medicate him
against his will are illegal, retaliatory and discriminatory
because Dr. Elsaid ordered the medication after CCII Johnson
insulted Plaintiff's heritage, Plaintiff is in mechanical
restraints so does not pose an immediate, unnecessary danger;
and Plaintiff did not threaten CCII Johnson. Compl. at 7.
Plaintiff further alleges that the attempt to medicate him
against his will is an excessive use of force. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' actions violate
numerous state regulations, such as sections 3000, 3004,
3270, 3271, 3272, 3278, 3285, 3291, 3303(b)(1), 3380, 3391,
3413(a)(2), 3413(a)(6), and 3415 of the California Code of
Regulations, title 15. Compl. at 7-8.
requests the following relief: (1) a preliminary restraining
order against CDCR directors, secretaries and
undersecretaries enjoining them from racial discrimination
pursuant to Article 19c, Section 4 of the California
Constitution, and Section 3418(c) of the California Code of
Regulations, title 15; (2) “a jury public trial for
racial discrimination, ” and (3) that CDCR Director
Timothy M. Lockwood be required to pay the full ...