United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL AND SERVICE
GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state prisoner who is currently incarcerated at California
Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a pro
se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging various violations of his federal civil rights
against several CTF officials. Dkt. 1 at 10-11. Plaintiff also
invokes this Court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1367 in order to bring state law claims.
names the following Defendants from CTF: Correctional
Officers B. Aguirre, M. Zavala, G. Morales, J. Ibarra, and G.
Lopez; Correctional Sergeant C. Woods, II; Acting Warden C.
Koenig; and John Does 1-5. Id. at 5. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief and monetary damages.
has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which will be granted in a separate written
is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are
alleged to have occurred at CTF, which is located in this
judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Standard of Review
federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or 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 that
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. Id. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally
construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't,
901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements, namely that: (1) a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated, and (2) the alleged violation was committed by a
person acting under the color of state law. West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
who is African-American, alleges that on January 11, 2019, he
was subjected to excessive force by Defendant Aguirre. Dkt. 1
at 6. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the
incident, Defendant Zavala ordered all inmates to place their
hands on the wall, and the inmates complied. Id.
Defendant Aguirre positioned himself behind Plaintiff and
told Plaintiff to put his hands on the wall. Id.
Plaintiff told Defendant Aguirre, “Why are you telling
me to do something I am already doing?” Id.
Defendant Aguirre then grabbed Plaintiff's shirt, planted
his foot and plunged his elbow into Plaintiff's back
area. Id. Plaintiff hit the wall. Id.
Plaintiff claims that prior to this incident he had his hands
up on the wall in the position for a clothed body search.
Id. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants Zavala,
Morales, Ibarra, Lopez and Woods were present during the
alleged use of force incident, but they failed to intervene
or report the incident to their supervisor. Id. at
7. Also, Plaintiff claims that when Defendant Zavala wrote a
report about the incident, Defendant Zavala did not report
the alleged use of force by Defendant Aguirre on Plaintiff.
Id. Instead, Defendant Zavala “deliberately
limited the report to searching and did not include the other
defendants.” Id. Plaintiff complained to
Defendant Lopez of having pain in his back and requested to
see the doctor. Id. Defendant Lopez denied
Plaintiff's request to see the doctor. Id.
Plaintiff then complained to Defendant Woods, but Defendant
Woods denied Plaintiff's request to see the doctor and
instructed him to speak with the program sergeant.
Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants
Aguirre, Zavala, Morales, and Ibarra were also present when
Plaintiff asked to see a doctor but they failed to make
“any attempt to allow Plaintiff to get medical
attention for his pain.” Id. at 9.
on January 11, 2019, Defendant Zavala found an “inmate
manufactured lighter (contraband) on the ground in the area
where the clothed body searches were being conducted, ”
but Defendant Zavala “falsified” the property
receipt by stating that the contraband was removed from
Plaintiff's cell. Id. at 8. Plaintiff informed
Defendant Zavala that he was going to file a 602 inmate
appeal against him for falsifying the report. Id.
Defendant Zavala replied, “I'm going to write you a
115 [Rules Violation Report (“RVR”) . . . two can
play that game.” Id. Defendant Zavala drafted
an RVR for his “disruptive behavior which could lead to
violence” dated January 11, 2019, stemming from the
incident on that date and claiming that Plaintiff yelled
various phrases about Defendant Zavala being a
“racist.” Id., Ex. A1.
January 12, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a health care service
request form in which he “complained of back pain and
stiffness in his upper back and difficulty with range of
motion.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff claims he is
“taking the pain medication ‘Naproxen 500
January 13, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a 602 inmate appeal in
which he “requested, among other things, that the use
of force be investigated and Defendant Aguirre explain his
misconduct for his actions.” Id.
January 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a 602 inmate appeal against
Defendant Zavala for falsifying the ...