Wade v. Burkhart

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Damaris J. Wade leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds a viable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against defendants Humphers, Lindquist, Tuyen, and McNamara, but finds the other asserted claims and defendants insufficiently pleaded. The court gives plaintiff the choice to proceed on the screened excessive-force claim or file an amended complaint.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted because his declaration showed that he could not afford to pay the entire filing fee.
2. The complaint adequately stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against defendants Humphers, Lindquist, Tuyen, and McNamara.
3. The complaint failed to state viable First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference, or failure-to-protect claims, and failed to state claims against Burkhart, Struve, Odam, D'Angelo, Judd, Maner, Barrios, Chavez, Spaulding, and Reese.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint adequately stated an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Humphers, Lindquist, Tuyen, and McNamara.
2. Whether the complaint adequately stated First Amendment retaliation, Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference, or failure-to-protect claims.
3. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged personal involvement by the remaining named defendants to support § 1983 liability.
4. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to proceed on the surviving claim or amend the complaint to cure pleading deficiencies.
5. Whether plaintiff qualified to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Disposition

other