Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01330/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01330-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

OSCAR CHAIDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VANGILDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01330-HSG (PR) 

AMENDED ORDER OF SERVICE

The order of service entered on May 26, 2016 is vacated and replaced with the following 

order:

Plaintiff, an inmate at Centinela State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 

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

incarcerated. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. His 

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 

Case 4:16-cv-01330-HSG Document 29 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

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 

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 complaint, on June 4, 2015, PBSP correctional officers Vangilder and 

Vasquez were engaging in unprofessional conduct and “horsing around” with each other, which 

caused one of them to drop a grenade that discharged a chemical agent near plaintiff’s cell. 

Plaintiff states he felt a severe burning sensation in his skin and eyes when the chemical agent 

vapors entered his cell. 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 

Case 4:16-cv-01330-HSG Document 29 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

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

Melton.

Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ actions constituted cruel and unusual punishment, 

in violation of Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution and violated California tort laws 

against negligence and against the infliction of mental and emotional distress. 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. Defendants have already been served and have appeared through counsel in this 

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

and service is complete in the three cases that have been related to this action, i.e., Cisneros v. 

Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-0735 HSG (PR); Falla v. Ducart, et al., No. C 16-0869 HSG (PR); and 

Manriquez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1320 HSG (PR).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

11/3/2016

Case 4:16-cv-01330-HSG Document 29 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 3