(PC) Vinyard v. Konrad

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUWA R. VINYARD, Case No. 2:24-cv-0943-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KONRAD, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Joshuwa Vinyard is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil rights 18 action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first amended complaint alleges that defendants 19 Arana, Velasquez, Cox, Alvarez, Spears, and Konrad used unauthorized excessive force against 20 him. This complaint states a cognizable claim against these defendants. It fails, however, to state 21 a cognizable claim against the Warden of California State Prison, Sacramento and correctional 22 officer Amaro. Plaintiff may either proceed only with the claims deemed viable or delay service 23 and file another amended complaint. 24 Screening and Pleading Requirements 25 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 26 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 27 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 7 662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 14 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 20 Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Alvarez, Spears, Velasquez, and Cox used unauthorized, 22 excessive force against him at the direction of defendants Arana and Konrad. ECF No. 11 at 5. 23 For the purposes of screening and accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, I find that the 24 complaint has alleged facts sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for 25 excessive force against these defendants. See Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1141 (9th Cir. 26 2020). 27 By contrast, plaintiff’s claims against the Warden and Amaro are nonviable. The 28 complaint contains no allegations that the Warden or Amaro were directly involved in or aware of 1 | the excessive force used against plaintiff. And there is no respondeat superior liability under 2 | section 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 4 1. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file a written indication 5 | of his intent to pursue only with the viable claims described in this order, or file another amended 6 | complaint. If he selects the latter, no defendants will be served until the new complaint is 7 || screened. 8 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 9 | order. 10 Wl IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ( 4 ie — Dated: _ December 3, 2024 Q_—_—. 13 JEREMY D. PETERSON 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28