Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marin
Defendant
Rios
Defendant
Salvador Gonzalez Verduzco
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Salvador Gonzalez Verduzco (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was transferred to 

this Court on September 5, 2014. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on April 30, 2014, is currently before the 

Court for screening. 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

SALVADOR GONZALEZ VERDUZCO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01387-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 5
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s 

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. 

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant 

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at Salinas Valley State Prison. The events in the complaint are 

alleged to have occurred at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names Correctional Officers Marin and 

Rios as defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

I went to the clinic, Salcedo and Portillo took me out of my cell with hand cuff’s and with 

chains on my legs – than Marin and Rios took me back from the clinic or mini hospital at 

Corcoran than Marin started pushing me and than I dessapier when I wake up I was in 

fresno Hospital. With very – sirious injury, in my left side of my head. I want a 

Compensation of money plus free Canteen every month, plus extra trays and peanut 

butter lunch everyday. this was on 09/20/2008.

(ECF No. 1, p. 3) (unedited text). 

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 5
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

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a 

cognizable claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure the deficiencies in his complaint. To assist 

Plaintiff, the Court provides the relevant pleading and legal standards. 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a ). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–

557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it does not include a plain statement of his claim. 

Rather, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to include sufficient factual allegations to clearly state what 

happened. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must include facts alleging what each 

defendant did or did not do that resulted in a violation of his constitutional rights. 

B. Excessive Force

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison 

conditions must involve “the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 

U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). The inquiry as to whether a prison 

official’s use of force constitutes cruel and unusual punishment 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, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); Whitley v. 

Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1085(312), 89 L.Ed.2d 251.

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

“The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is ... contextual and responsive to 

contemporary standards of decency.” Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, 112 S.Ct. at 1000 (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). A prison official’s use of force to maliciously and sadistically cause 

harm violates the contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37, 130 S.Ct. 

1175, 1178, 175 L.Ed.2d 995 (2010). However, “[n]ot ‘every malevolent touch by a prison guard 

gives rise to a federal cause of action.” Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 

S.Ct. at 1000). Factors that can be considered are “the need for the application of force, the 

relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [and] the extent of injury 

inflicted.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. at 1085; Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689, 692 (9th 

Cir.2003). Although the extent of the injury is relevant, the inmate does not need to sustain serious 

injury. Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178–79; Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Marin started pushing Plaintiff and Plaintiff then 

disappeared and woke up in the hospital with a serious head injury. Although Plaintiff’s complaint 

refers to being sent “to the Comma,” it is not clear if he means he was comatose from an alleged 

injury. The Court cannot infer from the facts as stated that Defendant Marin’s action in pushing 

Plaintiff resulted in any corresponding injury. Plaintiff does not allege whether he fell, tripped, was 

pushed onto the ground or into an object or how obtained the alleged head injury. Plaintiff will be 

given leave to cure this deficiency. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and he fails to 

state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to cure the identified 

deficiencies. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(citations omitted). 

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/11/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims 

in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local 

Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a first amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 02/11/15 Page 5 of 5