Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00943-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvarez
Defendant
Amaro
Defendant
Arana
Defendant
Cox
Defendant
Konrad
Defendant
Spears
Defendant
Velasquez
Defendant
Joshuwa R. Vinyard
Plaintiff
Warden
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOSHUWA R. VINYARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

KONRAD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-0943-JDP (P)

ORDER 

Plaintiff Joshuwa Vinyard is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint alleges that defendants 

Arana, Velasquez, Cox, Alvarez, Spears, and Konrad used unauthorized excessive force against 

him. This complaint states a cognizable claim against these defendants. It fails, however, to state 

a cognizable claim against the Warden of California State Prison, Sacramento and correctional 

officer Amaro. Plaintiff may either proceed only with the claims deemed viable or delay service 

and file another amended complaint.

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 

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 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

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)).

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Alvarez, Spears, Velasquez, and Cox used unauthorized,

excessive force against him at the direction of defendants Arana and Konrad. ECF No. 11 at 5. 

For the purposes of screening and accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, I find that the 

complaint has alleged facts sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for 

excessive force against these defendants. See Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1141 (9th Cir. 

2020). 

By contrast, plaintiff’s claims against the Warden and Amaro are nonviable. The 

complaint contains no allegations that the Warden or Amaro were directly involved in or aware of 

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 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

the excessive force used against plaintiff. And there is no respondeat superior liability under 

section 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file a written indication 

of his intent to pursue only with the viable claims described in this order, or file another amended 

complaint. If he selects the latter, no defendants will be served until the new complaint is 

screened.

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

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00943-JDP Document 12 Filed 12/03/24 Page 3 of 3