Mike Yang v. Sawagasa, et al.

Summary

The Eastern District of California grants Mike Yang leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screens his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The court finds potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Sawagasa concerning unsafe conditions of confinement and against Sawagasa and Dr. Alex Farrar concerning deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, while dismissing other claims with leave to amend. The court also denies without prejudice the motion for appointment of counsel and provides plaintiff with an election to proceed on the cognizable claims or amend the complaint.

Holdings

1. The complaint states a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Sawagasa based on unsafe conditions of confinement arising from the alleged continued mace exposure and denial of a cell move or replacement mattress.
2. The complaint states potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims against Sawagasa and Dr. Alex Farrar.
3. The complaint does not state an excessive-force claim against Sawagasa because plaintiff alleged that the mace canister accidentally discharged and alleged no facts showing that Sawagasa intentionally used force against him.
4. Plaintiff failed to state claims for sexual discrimination, due-process violations, excessive force against Farrar, or separate Eighth Amendment claims based solely on Farrar's verbal abuse and threats.
5. Plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel because he failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff's complaint stated potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claims against Sawagasa for unsafe conditions of confinement and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
2. Whether plaintiff stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Sawagasa based on the accidental mace discharge, the order to clean the bedding, and the continued exposure.
3. Whether plaintiff stated deliberate-indifference, excessive-force, sexual-discrimination, due-process, or verbal-abuse claims against Dr. Alex Farrar.
4. Whether plaintiff qualified for appointment of counsel based on exceptional circumstances.
5. Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis and was subject to the statutory prisoner filing-fee requirements.

Disposition

other