Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Kamaron L. Walker’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his prisoner civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court finds a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Correctional Officers Cofer, Banish, and Jones, but not against Sergeant Elizarraras or Warden Lynch, and gives Walker the option to proceed on the cognizable claims or file an amended complaint.
Holdings
- Walker demonstrated that he could not afford to pay the entire filing fee, so the court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis and required payment of the statutory filing fee through the inmate-account installment process.
- The complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Cofer, Banish, and Jones.
- The complaint did not state a cognizable claim against Elizarraras because it alleged only that he sent another officer to intimidate Walker and ensure that he returned to his cell, without facts showing participation in the attack or that he set in motion acts he knew or reasonably should have known would cause constitutional injury.
- The complaint did not state a cognizable excessive-force claim against Warden Lynch because the allegation that the attack occurred under his direct authority was insufficient to establish personal participation, direction, or knowledge coupled with a failure to prevent the violation.
Questions Presented
- Whether Walker qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- Whether the complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Officers Cofer, Banish, and Jones.
- Whether the complaint adequately linked Sergeant Elizarraras to the alleged constitutional violation.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim against Warden Lynch under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 despite the absence of allegations of personal participation, direction, or knowledge and failure to prevent the alleged force.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (19)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)(applied)
- Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989)(applied)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 570 (2007)(applied)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(applied)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007)(applied)
- Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)(applied)
- Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2021)(applied)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)(applied)
- Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976)(applied)
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…