Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01320/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01320-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL MANRIQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VANGILDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01320-HSG (PR) 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Plaintiff, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, filed a pro se amended civil rights complaint 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he was 

previously incarcerated. He has paid the filing fee. His amended complaint is now before the 

Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

A 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. See 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal 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.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the 

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon 

Case 4:16-cv-01320-HSG Document 20 Filed 11/03/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). Although 

in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . 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, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint 

must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 1974. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

According to the amended complaint, on June 4, 2015, PBSP correctional officers 

Vangilder and Vasquez were engaging in unprofessional conduct and “horse playing” with each 

other, which caused one of them to drop a grenade that discharged a chemical agent near 

plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff states he began to choke, cough, gag, and experience painful burning in 

his eyes and lungs from the chemical agent being dispersed. Plaintiff attempted to obtain medical 

attention, but his pleas for help were ignored by Vangilder and Vasquez. 

Plaintiff also alleges that PBSP supervisory officers Cupp, Cuske, Ohland, and Melton 

knew that the expended grenade dispersed painful chemical vapors, that plaintiff had been exposed 

to the vapors, that plaintiff had not been decontaminated or given medical attention, that the pod 

had not been decontaminated, and that there was no air circulating into the pod. Despite this 

knowledge, Cupp, Cuske, Ohland and Melton did nothing to aid plaintiff.

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for 

excessive force as against defendants Vangilder and Vasquez. Plaintiff’s complaint also states 

cognizable Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims and deliberate indifference to 

serious medical needs claims as against defendants Vangilder, Vasquez, Cupp, Cuske, Ohland and 

Melton.

Case 4:16-cv-01320-HSG Document 20 Filed 11/03/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions violated sections 835, 844.6, and 845.6 of 

the California Government Code and violated California tort laws against negligence. The Court 

has federal supplemental jurisdiction “over all other claims that are so related to claims in the 

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Therefore, the Court will 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the aforementioned state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims and supplemental 

state law claims.

2. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint (dkt. no. 15), all attachments 

thereto, and a copy of this order on J. Vangilder, J. Vasquez, S. Cupp, J. Cuske, K. Ohland,

and D. Melton at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of this 

order to Ian Michael Ellis at the California Attorney General’s Office.

3. The Court will set a dispositive motion briefing schedule by separate order once 

screening and service is complete in this action and the three cases that have been related to this 

action, i.e., Cisneros v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-0735 HSG (PR); Chaidez v. Vangilder, et al., 

No. C 16-1330 NJV (PR); and Falla v. Ducart, et al., No. C 16-0869 HSG (PR). Once defendants 

have been served in this action, counsel is requested to file a notice of appearance or other such 

pleading confirming that the case has been served.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/3/2016

Case 4:16-cv-01320-HSG Document 20 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 3