Williams v. Austen

District Court, N.D. California·Decided May 1, 2020·No. 4:19-cv-06882·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 EMMANUEL DONTEZE WILLIAMS, 7 Case No. 19-cv-06882-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, v. 9 Z. AUSTEN, 10 Defendant. 11

13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 14 stemming from a June 7, 2018 incident at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”), where he is still 15 currently housed. He alleges that Defendant PBSP Correctional Officer Z. Austen used excessive 16 force against him. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which will be granted in 18 a separate written Order. 19 Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claim are alleged to have occurred at 20 PBSP which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 22 A. Standard of Review 23 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 26 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se 1 Cir. 1988). 2 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 3 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 4 the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 5 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 6 B. Excessive Force Claim 7 A prisoner has the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, including physical 8 abuse by guards. Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in 9 violation of the Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a 10 good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. 11 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)). 12 Plaintiff alleges that on June 7, 2018, he was subjected to excessive force by Defendant. 13 Dkt. 1 at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the incident Defendant “used 14 excessive force that was unnecessary for there was no immine[n]t threat observed by 15 [Defendant].” Id. Plaintiff adds that “given the circumstances there was no clear reason as to why 16 [Defendant] fired his 40 mm[.] launcher.” Id. Furthermore, Plaintiff claims that Defendant “never 17 stated in [his] incident report [that] he observed behavior that may have le[]d to [serious bodily 18 injury], or [great bodily injury] to another.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff claims that he lost a tooth during 19 this altercation. Id. 20 Liberally construed, Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 21 against Defendant. 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 24 1. Plaintiff states a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim for the use of excessive force 25 against Defendant. 26 2. The Clerk of the Court shall mail a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of 27 Service of Summons, two copies of the Waiver of Service of Summons, a copy of the complaint 1 Officer Z. Austen. The Clerk shall also mail a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order to 2 State Attorney General’s Office in San Francisco. Additionally, the Clerk shall mail a copy of this 3 Order to Plaintiff. 4 3. Defendant is cautioned that Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 5 Defendant to cooperate in saving unnecessary costs of service of the summons and complaint. 6 Pursuant to Rule 4, if Defendant, after being notified of this action and asked by the Court, on 7 behalf of Plaintiff, to waive service of the summons, fail to do so, Defendant will be required to 8 bear the cost of such service unless good cause be shown for the failure to sign and return the 9 waiver form. If service is waived, this action will proceed as if Defendant had been served on the 10 date that the waiver is filed, except that pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1)(B), Defendant will not be 11 required to serve and file an answer before sixty (60) days from the date on which the request for 12 waiver was sent. (This allows a longer time to respond than would be required if formal service of 13 summons is necessary.) Defendant is asked to read the statement set forth at the foot of the waiver 14 form that more completely describes the duties of the parties with regard to waiver of service of 15 the summons. If service is waived after the date provided in the Notice but before Defendant has 16 been personally served, the Answer shall be due sixty (60) days from the date on which the 17 request for waiver was sent or twenty (20) days from the date the waiver form is filed, whichever 18 is later. 19 4. Defendant shall answer the complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure. The following briefing schedule shall govern dispositive motions in this action: 21 a. No later than sixty (60) days from the date their answer is due, Defendant 22 shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. The motion must be 23 supported by adequate factual documentation, must conform in all respects to Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 56, and must include as exhibits all records and incident reports stemming from 25 the events at issue. A motion for summary judgment also must be accompanied by a Rand1 notice 26 so that Plaintiff will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of him in order to 27 1 oppose the motion. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934, 935 (9th Cir. 2012) (notice requirement set out 2 in Rand must be served concurrently with motion for summary judgment). A motion to dismiss 3 for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies must be accompanied by a similar notice. 4 However, the Court notes that under the new law of the circuit, in the rare event that a failure to 5 exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint, Defendant may move for dismissal under Rule 6 12(b)(6) as opposed to the previous practice of moving under an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion. 7 Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 2014) (overruling Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 8 1119 (9th Cir. 2003), which held that failure to exhaust available administrative remedies under 9 the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), should be raised by a defendant as an 10 unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion). Otherwise if a failure to exhaust is not clear on the face of the 11 complaint, Defendant must produce evidence proving failure to exhaust in a motion for summary 12 judgment under Rule 56. Id.

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

Williams v. Austen, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Williams v. Austen (Williams v. Austen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whitley v. Albers
475 U.S. 312 (Supreme Court, 1986)
West v. Atkins
487 U.S. 42 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Hudson v. McMillian
503 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1992)
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)
Wyatt v. Terhune
315 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)