Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03159/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03159-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Sylvester Holloway
Plaintiff
B. Richards
Defendant

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

EUREKA DIVISION

ROY SYLVESTER HOLLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Ms. B. RICHARDS,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-3159 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.)

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).

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, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

Case 1:15-cv-03159-NJV Document 4 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 4
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

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2009). 

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 a prison employee behaved improperly.

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) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and

citation omitted). With respect to excessive force, the core judicial inquiry is whether force

was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and

sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). But not every

malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Id. at 9. The

Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes

Case 1:15-cv-03159-NJV Document 4 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 4
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

from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of

force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Id. An inmate who

complains of a push or shove that causes no discernable injury almost certainly fails to

state a valid excessive force claim. Id. Allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to

state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732,

738 (9th Cir. 1997) overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878,

884-85 (9th Cir. 2008).

Plaintiff states that on October 29, 2013, he was working when the defendant came

within one feet of him and intentionally bumped into him and then for ten minutes stated,

“Are you kidding me, motherucker” Are you motherfucking kidding me? Are you going to

just stand there motherfucker?” Plaintiff states he was put in administrative segregation on

November 7, 2013. He provides no other information in the complaint and seeks monetary

damages. Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a constitutional violation. The bump was a de

minimis use of force and allegations of verbal harassment do not state a claim. Plaintiff will

be provided one opportunity to amend to cure these deficiencies.

CONCLUSION

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with the

standards set forth above. The amended complaint must be filed within twenty-eight (28)

days of the date this order is filed and 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. 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 this action.

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. 

Case 1:15-cv-03159-NJV Document 4 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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: August 6, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-03159-NJV Document 4 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 4