United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE TO ACTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF NO.
10) FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Denzell Magic Metcalf (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October
11, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and
directed him to either file a first amended complaint or
notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on certain
cognizable claims. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff's first amended
complaint, filed on November 15, 2019, is currently before
the Court for screening. (ECF No. 10)
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
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)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
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 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano,
California, where the events in the complaint are alleged to
have occurred. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1)
Sergeant C. Huckleberry; (2) Correctional Officer Burkfit;
(3) Correctional Officer M. Franco; and (4) Correctional
Officer M. Marquez.
alleges: On July 3, 2018, Plaintiff attended Committee, which
is a meeting between the Captain Faulkner, Counselors and
Plaintiff to determine his housing conditions at Kern Valley
State Prison. During this meeting, Plaintiff told Captain
Faulkner that he had safety concerns with his planned housing
in Kern Valley State Prison D-Yard, Building 1-4 & 5-6.
Plaintiff gave Captain Faulkner the names of the inmates who
posed a threat to Plaintiff's safety, but Captain
Faulkner failed to conduct a proper threat assessment.
Instead, Captain Faulkner told Plaintiff to speak with D-Yard
Sergeant Pitchford about his situation. Plaintiff explained
to Sergeant Pitchford about his situation, but Sergeant
Pitchford did not properly investigate it. Sergeant Pitchford
sent Plaintiff back to his housing unit, D7.
asserts that a claim form was not available for him to file a
complaint in a timely fashion, so he told Defendant Burkfit,
the floor officer, that he had safety concerns at the
facility, and he would be in conflict if he stayed on the
yard. Defendant Burkfit did nothing, so Plaintiff filled out
a CDCR Form 22 stating his safety concerns. Plaintiff asked
Defendant Burkfit to sign the form, which he did. Plaintiff
claims that this indicates Defendant Burkfit was fully aware
of the imminent danger. Defendant Burkfit told Plaintiff that
if he did not go that day, then they would come to get him to
go on July 6, 2018.
few days, on July 6, 2018, Officer Sharp came to
Plaintiff's cell. Officer Sharp explained that Defendant
Huckleberry was out on the D-Yard patio waiting to conduct a
proper threat assessment regarding Plaintiff's safety
concerns. Plaintiff's cell mate, Inmate Jason Broadbent,
told Plaintiff not to go and that it was a set up. Plaintiff
claims that prison officials never intended to conduct a
proper threat assessment regarding his safety concerns.
6, 2018, Plaintiff walked out of his cell to the D-Yard
patio, unhandcuffed and in full compliance. Plaintiff was
greeted by Defendants Huckleberry, Marquez and Franco, who
were visibly tightening their gloves around their hands.
Plaintiff tried to explain his situation to Defendant
Huckleberry and told him the names of the inmates. Before
Plaintiff could explain why, Defendant Huckleberry ordered
Defendants Marquez and Franco to handcuff Plaintiff and
escort him to the yard where Plaintiff said he had safety
concerns. Plaintiff asked them why there were handcuffing him
and pushing him to the yard when all he did was ask for help.
Defendant Huckleberry told him to shut up and walked with
Defendants Franco and Marquez as they pushed and escorted
Plaintiff to a yard where Plaintiff had safety concerns. Once
at ¶ 6 Building, Cell 126, Plaintiff was pushed inside
the cell by Defendant Franco and Plaintiff's handcuffs
were removed. Plaintiff went to bang on the cell door as
officers were walking away, and when Plaintiff turned around,
the inmate occupying the cell pulled out a knife and stabbed
Plaintiff in the face.
relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.