Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03821/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Monroy
Defendant
Phillip Villanueva
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER R.

MONROY, 

Defendant.

_______________________________

_ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

No. C 05-3821 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), filed

the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an SVSP guard, R. Monroy. 

In a separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges the following events in his complaint. In March 2005, he and four

other inmates were attacked by a fifth inmate. SVSP guards arrived on the scene and told

plaintiff and the other inmates to get on the ground. Plaintiff got on the ground, and while he

was there, he was hit in the head with a baton, causing him to “black out.” Although he was told

that he needed medical attention immediately, none was provided. He claims he has dizziness,

pain and tunnel vision as a result. 

Case 3:05-cv-03821-MMC Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 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

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 id. §

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

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 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 Claim

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.

25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain

 . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." Whitley v.

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (elipsis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Although plaintiff sufficiently alleges he was subject to excessive force under the

Eighth Amendment, he does not state a claim against Monroy, the only defendant named in the

complaint. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983, however,

only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a

federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v.

City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d

292, 294 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding defendant cannot be held liable based on membership in

group, absent showing of his individual participation in unlawful conduct). Here, plaintiff does

not allege what Monroy did, or how Monroy might have caused or been involved in plaintiff’s

Case 3:05-cv-03821-MMC Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 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

receiving the head injury. Consequently, plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim under §

1983. 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency, if he can do

so in good faith. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within thirty

(30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT

correcting the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff shall include in the caption both the case

number of this action (No. C 05-3821 MMC (PR)), and the phrase "AMENDED

COMPLAINT." 

2. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in

the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If plaintiff

fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the complaint

will be dismissed.

3. It is plaintiffs’ responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any 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, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 28, 2005

_________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03821-MMC Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3