Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00869/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00869-3/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. VANGILDER, et al.,

Defendants.

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

ORDER OF SERVICE

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

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against PBSP staff. He has been granted leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis by separate order. 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-00869-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 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. 

Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive 

force, conditions of confinement, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims as 

against defendants Vangilder and Vasquez. 

Plaintiff also 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 

Case 4:16-cv-00869-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

supplemental jurisdiction over the state law negligence claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient allegations linking defendants Ducart, Cupp, 

Cuske, and Ohland to any constitutional violation. Therefore they will be dismissed from this 

action. If plaintiff can allege facts to establish liability against these defendants, he may move to 

amend his pleadings.

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 against defendants Vangilder and Vasquez. The Clerk shall terminate all other 

defendants from this action. 

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. 17), all attachments 

thereto, and a copy of this order on Officers J. Vangilder and J. Vasquez 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 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

11/3/2016

Case 4:16-cv-00869-HSG Document 20 Filed 11/03/16 Page 3 of 3