(PC) Johnson v. Castillo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINNELL JOHNSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-00637-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE 13 v. CLAIMS 14 CASTILLO, (ECF No. 1) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Quinnell Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on 20 May 27, 2022, is before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 1.) 21 I. Screening Requirement and Standard 22 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 23 governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous 25 or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 26 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b). 27 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 28 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 1 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 2 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 3 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as 4 true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires 7 sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable 8 for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret 9 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully 10 is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility 11 standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 12 II. Plaintiff’s Allegations 13 Plaintiff is currently housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, 14 California. The events in the amended complaint are alleged to have occurred while Plaintiff was 15 housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California. 16 Plaintiff names Correctional Officer Castillo as the sole defendant. 17 Plaintiff alleges as follows: 18 On June 2, 2020, while incarcerated at CSATF, Building E-3, at approximately 11:00 19 a.m., Plaintiff approached the officer’s booth and informed Defendant Castillo that Plaintiff had 20 safety concerns due to excessive cell moves during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. After 21 being told to turn around and “cuff up” by Defendant Castillo, Plaintiff was forcibly shoved in the 22 back by Defendant Castillo, almost causing Plaintiff to lose his balance, without any provocation 23 from Plaintiff. After being handcuffed, and Defendant Castillo making statements expressing his 24 displeasure of having to escort Plaintiff, Plaintiff was escorted by Defendant Castillo into 25 building E-3’s vestibule. Once inside the vestibule, Defendant Castillo slammed the right side of 26 Plaintiff’s head into the wall of the vestibule multiple times. While lying on top of Plaintiff in the 27 vestibule, Defendant Castillo slammed Plaintiff’s head into the floor of the vestibule multiple 28 times, and breathed into Plaintiff’s face heavily without wearing a face mask. 1 Plaintiff has experienced severe and ongoing pain and suffering on the right side of his 2 head, swelling, headaches, vomiting, PTSD, nightmares, an unshakable fear of officers, 3 depression, seizures, etc. 4 Plaintiff seeks punitive and compensatory damages. 5 III. Discussion 6 A. Eighth Amendment – Excessive Force 7 The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and 8 from inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 9 2006). The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain violates the Cruel and Unusual 10 Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) 11 (citations omitted). Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must 12 provide prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. 13 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832–33 (1994) (quotations omitted). 14 For claims of excessive physical force, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good- 15 faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” 16 Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Relevant factors for this consideration include “the extent of injury . . . [,] 17 the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, 18 the threat ‘reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,’ and ‘any efforts made to temper the 19 severity of a forceful response.’” Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 1078, 1085 (1986)). 20 Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use 21 of force to cause harm always violates the Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether or not 22 significant injury is evident. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9–10; Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 628 (9th 23 Cir. 2002). 24 At the pleading stage, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for excessive force in violation of 25 the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Castillo for slamming Plaintiff’s head. 26 IV. Conclusion and Order 27 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim against 28 Defendant Castillo in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 2 1. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on May 27, 2022, (ECF No. 3 1), against Defendant Castillo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 4 Amendment; and 5 2. A separate order will issue regarding service of the complaint. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 8, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28