Mendez v. Contreras

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 5, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-04677
StatusUnknown

This text of Mendez v. Contreras (Mendez v. Contreras) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mendez v. Contreras, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOVANNY J. MENDEZ, Case No. 22-cv-04677-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF SERVICE v. 9

10 C. CONTRERAS, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), has filed a pro se complaint under 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that six defendant PBSP correctional officers used excessive force on 15 him in January 2021. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s complaint is before the Court for screening pursuant 16 to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 17 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted in a separate 18 written Order. 19 DISCUSSION 20 A. Standard of Review 21 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 22 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 24 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 26 (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d 27 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020). 1 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 2 necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 3 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 4 While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned, 5 the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009). 6 A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 7 cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id. 8 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 9 that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 10 alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. 11 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 12 B. Legal Claims 13 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Contreras threatened him on January 21, 2021, while 14 escorting him to the medical building, by commenting that if he “fucked with any c/os” he would 15 end up in an ambulance. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff learned later that day that an inmate was killed 16 in his cell. Id. 17 Plaintiff alleges that the next day, after he refused to take a COVID test, defendants Taylor 18 and Evans grabbed him and body slammed him to the ground and defendant Contreras kneed him 19 in the back. Id. at 7. Defendant Taylor banged his head into the ground, and defendants Evans 20 and Shaad put him in leg restraints and applied pressure to his body. Defendant Taylor punched 21 him in the head numerous times while defendants Contreras, Taylor, Maylin, Evans, and Shaad 22 were applying pressure with their bodyweight to his back. Id. Defendant sergeant Northup “was 23 just standing the[re] watching instead of trying to stop his fellow officers from using excessive 24 physical force.” Id. at 8. 25 Plaintiff alleges that defendants retaliated against him “because of the recent assaults on 26 staff.” Id. He seeks declaratory relief and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 9-10. 27 Liberally construed, plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against all six defendants of 1 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive force in the form of “unnecessary and wanton 2 infliction of pain” on a convicted prisoner). 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. The Court ORDERS that service on the following defendants shall proceed under 6 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for 7 civil rights cases from prisoners in the CDCR’s custody: 8 a. C. Contreras 9 b. J. Taylor 10 c. J. Evans 11 d. A. Maylin 12 e. A. Shaad 13 f. Sergeant L. Northup 14 In accordance with the program, the Clerk is directed to serve on the CDCR via email the 15 following documents: the operative complaint (ECF. No. 1), this Order of Service, a CDCR 16 Report of E-Service Waiver form, and a summons. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order 17 on the plaintiff. 18 No later than 40 days after service of this order via email on the CDCR, the CDCR shall 19 provide the court a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court which 20 defendant(s) listed in this order will be waiving service of process without the need for service by 21 the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and which defendant(s) decline to waive service or 22 could not be reached. The CDCR also shall provide a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service 23 Waiver to the California Attorney General’s Office which, within 21 days, shall file with the Court 24 a waiver of service of process for the defendant(s) who are waiving service. 25 Upon receipt of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver, the Clerk shall prepare for each 26 defendant who has not waived service according to the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver a 27 USM-205 Form. The Clerk shall provide to the USMS the completed USM-205 forms and copies 1 not waived service. The Clerk also shall provide to the USMS a copy of the CDCR Report of E- 2 Service Waiver. 3 2. Defendants are cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 requires defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and 5 complaint. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if defendants had been served on the 6 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(ii), defendants will not be 7 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the CDCR 8 provides a copy of the CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver to the California Attorney General’s 9 Office. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 10 summons is necessary.) If defendants have not waived service and have instead been served by 11 the USMS, then defendants shall serve and file an answer within twenty-one (21) days after being 12 served with the summons and complaint. 13 6. Defendants shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 14 Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 15 a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, defendants 16 shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Earnest Woods, II v. Tom Carey
684 F.3d 934 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Juan Albino v. Lee Baca
747 F.3d 1162 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
Gomez-Medina v. Barr
975 F.3d 27 (First Circuit, 2020)
Wyatt v. Terhune
315 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mendez v. Contreras, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendez-v-contreras-cand-2023.