Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05386/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05386-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Hernandez
Defendant
Christopher M. Killebrew
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER M. KILLEBREW,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Captain DENNIS McQUEENY; FIRMA

STEWART; MARSHA GRANT, R.N.;

CHARLES PACMIGIANO, M.D.; PETER

VAUGHY, M.D., of Mental Health; AMY

HARRIS, Mental Health Staff; and

Sergeant WILLIAM HERNANDEZ; 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-5386 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint involves events and defendants at the

Marin County Jail. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise to

the action occurred in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which 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. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 4:07-cv-05386-PJH Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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 1986-87. 

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 deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that when he became “unresponsive to orders” as a result of his

mental illness, defendant Hernandez emptied six pepper spray canisters through the food

slot of his cell, then shot five times through the slot with a pellet gun. 

As plaintiff was being escorted from the cell, Hernandez allegedly told deputies to

drop him on his face if he resisted, then when he was in a “rubber room” threw a bucket of

water on him and that that was his shower. These allegations are sufficient to require a

response from Hernandez.

The other defendants are not mentioned in the “Statement of Claim” portion of the

complaint. Plaintiff thus has failed to state a claim against them which is plausible on its

face. The claims against the defendants other than Hernandez will be dismissed with leave

to amend. 

///

Case 4:07-cv-05386-PJH Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CONCLUSION

1. For the foregoing reasons, the claims against all defendants other than

Hernandez are DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above, within thirty days

from the date of this order. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case

number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present, including those against Hernandez that the

court has found to be sufficient to proceed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262

(9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. 

Failure to amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\KILLEBREW5386.DWLTA.wpd

Case 4:07-cv-05386-PJH Document 5 Filed 11/05/07 Page 3 of 3