Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00686/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00686-1/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

DAMIEN CRUZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-00686-KJM-JDP (PC)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS;

(2) FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT 

STATES COGNIZABLE EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT EXCESSIVE FORCE, 

INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE, AND 

STATE LAW CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS JOHNSON, 

COLMENARES, AND DOES

(3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

INDICATE WHETHER HE WISHES TO 

PROCEED WITH CLAIMS DEEMED 

COGNIZABLE IN THIS ORDER OR 

DELAY SERVICE AND FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

ECF Nos. 1 & 7

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants Johnson, 

Colmenares, Collado, and Does, violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

and state law by using excessive force against him, denying him care for the injuries he sustained 

as a result of that force, and falsifying a disciplinary violation report in connection with that 

Case 2:24-cv-00686-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 5
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

incident. As for defendant Johnson, I find that the Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure 

to provide medical care claims and state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, and violation of the California constitution are suitable to proceed. As for

defendant Colmenares and the Does, I find that the Eighth Amendment failure to protect and 

failure to provide medical care claims and state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, and violation of the California constitution are suitable to proceed. By 

contrast, plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, his excessive force claims against Colmenares 

and the Does, and all of his claims against Collado, as articulated and for the reasons stated 

below, are non-cognizable. Plaintiff must decide whether to proceed with the claims deemed 

cognizable or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. I will grant plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. 

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). 

Case 2:24-cv-00686-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 5
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

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)).

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that on August 30, 2022, he ventured into a building in Folsom State 

Prison in search of forms that would permit him to receive a family visit. ECF No. 1 at 7-8. 

While there, he was confronted by defendant Johnson, a correctional officer, and ordered to 

submit to handcuffs. Id. at 8. He did so, but alleges that Johnson made the cuffs so tight that they 

caused him intense pain in his wrists. Id. at 8-9. He complained repeatedly, first to Johnson 

herself, then to defendant Colmenares and the “Doe” defendants, that his wrists were hurting and 

that he needed medical attention. Id. at 9-10. Eventually, the handcuffs were removed with 

difficulty, but plaintiff’s wrists had swollen, and he alleges that he suffered nerve damage. Id. at 

9-11. 

These allegations are sufficient to state Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to 

provide medical care claims and state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of 

emotional distress, and violation of the California constitution against defendant Johnson. They 

are also sufficient to state Eighth Amendment failure to protect and failure to provide medical 

care claims and state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 

violation of the California constitution against defendants Colmenares and the “Doe” defendants. 

By contrast, no viable claim has been stated against defendant Collado, a registered nurse. 

Plaintiff alleges that, after his cuffs were removed, she misstated and falsified information on a 

form that detailed the events leading to plaintiff’s restraint. Id. at 10-11. The falsification of a 

prison medical report or form does not, standing alone, give rise to any violation of federal law. 

Courts have determined, for instance, that there is no established federal law entitling an inmate 

Case 2:24-cv-00686-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

to be free of false accusations made by prison staff. Garrott v. Glebe, 600 F. App’x 540, 542 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (“Nor has Garrott shown that it is clearly established federal law that a prisoner has a 

right to be free from false accusations.”); see also Harper v. Costa, No. CIV S-07-2149 LKK 

DAD P, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50418, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 15, 2009) (collecting cases supporting 

this point). Here, it bears further note, Collado does not appear to have falsely accused plaintiff 

of anything, insofar as she did not (and, as a medical staff member, could not) author a 

disciplinary report against him. Nor does plaintiff allege either that she provided substandard 

medical care or that she was positioned to intervene when he asked for help. See ECF No. 1 at 10 

(indicating that medical staff, including Collado, were summoned after the handcuffs had already 

been removed). These allegations also do not lend themselves to any state law claim against 

Collado. 

Additionally, no Fourteenth Amendment claim for a false disciplinary, filed by defendant 

Johnson, is cognizable. As noted above, there is no right to be free from false allegations, and 

plaintiff does not allege that the false disciplinary was retaliatory; rather, he contends it was 

issued to cover up Johnson’s conduct. Id. at 17. And he does not allege that he was denied any 

of the process he was due in connection with the proceedings that followed the issuance of the 

false disciplinary report.

Further, although plaintiff states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for failure to 

protect and failure to provide medical care against defendant Colmenares and the “Doe” 

defendants, he cannot also sustain a separate Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

them. Notably, plaintiff does not allege that any defendant other than Johnson committed an 

affirmative act that deployed force against him. Rather, they failed to protect him from Johnson’s 

alleged excesses. See Castro v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An 

excessive force claim requires an affirmative act; a failure-to-protect claim does not require an 

affirmative act.”). 

Finally, plaintiff cannot sustain a state law assault claim against any defendant. Assault 

under California law requires an attempted use of force. See Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 

855 (9th Cir. 2007) (listing the elements of civil battery under California law). Here, plaintiff 

Case 2:24-cv-00686-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

appears to be attempting to raise a state law battery claim insofar as Johnson successfully used 

force against him. If he wishes to raise that claim, he may do so in an amended complaint. The 

complaint, as articulated, fails to state a claim for either assault or battery against any defendant 

other than Johnson. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall either inform the court in writing 

of his intention to proceed with the claims deemed cognizable in this complaint, or he shall file an 

amended complaint.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 

order.

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00686-DC-JDP Document 9 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 5