United States District Court, N.D. California
ZANE M. HUBBARD, Plaintiff,
GLORIA RAMOS, Defendant.
ORDER OF SERVICE
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 against SVSP
psychiatrist Gloria Ramos. His complaint is now before the
Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. He has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a
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 makes the following allegations. Since 2013,
plaintiff has been forced to undergo aversive therapy.
Because the process is so intense, if plaintiff is placed in
an incompatible situation, it can cause him to assault
someone. When transferred to SVSP, plaintiff preemptively
requested that his interactions with other SVSP inmates be
restricted, but the request was denied. Plaintiff was housed
in an incompatible environment, which resulted in him
assaulting inmate Zuniga. On October 15, 2019, defendant
Ramos ordered that plaintiff be medicated against his will.
Defendant Ramos did not try to figure out whether there was
actually something wrong with plaintiff's way of
thinking. The medication causes plaintiff to suffer side
effects, including severe muscle cramps, muscle spasms,
contorted body movements, and a lack of energy. ECF No. 1 at
4-6. Liberally construed, the complaint states a cognizable
due process claim against defendant Ramos. Washington v.
Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22 (1990) (inmate has
significant liberty interest in avoiding unwanted
administration of medication under the Due Process Clause);
see also United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731,
744 (9th Cir. 2012) (same).
foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows.
complaint states a cognizable due process claim against Dr.
Gloria Ramos for medicating plaintiff without his consent.
Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall
serve, without prepayment of fees, a copy of the complaint
with all attachments thereto (Dkt. No. 1), and a copy of this
order upon defendant Dr. Gloria Ramos at
Salinas Valley State Prison, 31625 Highway 101,
Soledad, CA 93960. A courtesy copy of the complaint