Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00869-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

BENDY A. FALLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00869-HSG (PR)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

AMEND COMPLAINT; SECOND 

ORDER OF SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 24

Plaintiff, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), filed a pro se civil rights action 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against PBSP staff. On November 3, 2016, the Court screened plaintiff’s 

amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims and 

supplemental state law claims against defendants PBSP correctional officers Vangilder and 

Vasquez. The Court dismissed PBSP defendants Ducart, Cupp, Cuske, and Ohland on the 

grounds that plaintiff failed to present sufficient allegations to link these four defendants to any 

constitutional violation. The Court advised plaintiff that he could move to amend his pleadings if 

he was later able to allege facts establishing liability against the dismissed defendants.

On November 23, 2016 plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint form, which appears to be a 

proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”). See Dkt. No. 24. Although it was not 

accompanied by a motion, the Court construes the filing as a motion for leave to amend. 

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s 

pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to 

which a responsive pleading is required, within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written 

Case 4:16-cv-00869-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 4
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

consent of the adverse party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) is to be 

applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave shall be freely given when justice 

so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994). There is no 

indication that plaintiff’s motion is sought in bad faith, constitutes an exercise in futility, or creates 

undue delay. See id. Nor is there any suggestion that allowing plaintiff to file his proposed SAC 

would cause defendants any undue prejudice. See id. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for leave to 

amend is GRANTED. 

The SAC is now the operative pleading and is 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 

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. 

Case 4:16-cv-00869-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 4
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

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 SAC, on June 4, 2015, PBSP correctional officers Vangilder and Vasquez 

were engaging in unprofessional conduct and “horse playing” with each other, which caused 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 and experienced difficulty breathing as a result of 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 Ducart 

knew that the grenade had been dispersed, exposing plaintiff to harmful chemicals, yet did nothing 

to decontaminate the area or to provide plaintiff with medical attention.

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 

Ducart.

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:

Case 4:16-cv-00869-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk shall 

file Docket No. 24 as plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

2. Defendants Vangilder and Vasquez have already been ordered served. 

Accordingly, the Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without 

prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the SAC (dkt. no. 24), all attachments thereto, and a 

copy of this order on C. Ducart, K. Ohland, S. Cupp, and J. Cuske at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

The Clerk shall also re-instate these individuals as defendants on the court docket and 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 

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 Manriquez v. Vangilder, et al., No. C 16-1320 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

Case 4:16-cv-00869-HSG Document 25 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 4