Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01837/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01837-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA THOMAS NITKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. RADU, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01837-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks to raise a § 1983 claim against 

defendants Radu and Rutherford for violation of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. For the 

reasons stated herein, the complaint states First and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant 

Radu but fails to state a viable claim against Rutherford. Plaintiff may either proceed only 

against Radu, or he may delay service and file an amended complaint. I will grant plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 

Case 2:23-cv-01837-JDP Document 7 Filed 11/02/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that, on May 27, 2023, he fought another inmate, and officers approached 

to intervene. ECF No. 1 at 3. Once he had complied with officers’ orders to get on the floor and 

was no longer a threat, defendant Radu allegedly struck him repeatedly in the head with an “MEB 

Case 2:23-cv-01837-JDP Document 7 Filed 11/02/23 Page 2 of 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

3

stick.” Id. He claims that, when he asked Radu why he was attacking him, the officer indicated 

that it was reprisal for a grievance plaintiff had filed against him. Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that

Radu failed to summon medical staff after plaintiff was left bleeding and dizzy. Id. at 5. These 

allegations are sufficient to state First and Eighth Amendment claims against Radu.

As to defendant Rutherford, however, plaintiff alleges only that, some time after the 

attack, he informed this officer that he was suffering pain, dizziness, and nausea. Id. at 5. He 

alleges that he was then taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a concussion. Id. Nothing in 

these allegations indicates that Rutherford violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

As stated above, plaintiff may either proceed with all of his claims against Radu, or he 

may delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. He is advised that an amended 

complaint will supersede the current complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 

907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended 

Complaint” and refer to the appropriate case number.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff may either indicate his intent 

to proceed only with his claims against defendant Radu, or he may file an amended complaint.

3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01837-JDP Document 7 Filed 11/02/23 Page 3 of 3