1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUSSEIN KIETTY ALI, No. 2:25-cv-1360 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BENAVIDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state inmate who filed this civil rights action pursuant to

18 without a lawyer. He has requested leave to proceed without paying the full filing fee for this 19 action, under

. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration showing that he cannot 20 afford to pay the entire filing fee. See

(a)(2). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to 21 proceed in forma pauperis is granted.1 22 I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 23 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against “a 24 1 This means that plaintiff is allowed to pay the $350.00 filing fee in monthly installments that 25 are taken from the inmate’s trust account rather than in one lump sum.

(a). As 26 part of this order, the prison is required to remove an initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account. See

(b)(1). A separate order directed to the appropriate agency 27 requires monthly payments of twenty percent of the prior month’s income to be taken from plaintiff’s trust account. These payments will be taken until the $350 filing fee is paid in full. 28 See

(b)(2). 1 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A 2 claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is based on 4 an indisputably meritless legal theory or factual contentions that are baseless.

490 U.S. at 5 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an 6 arguable legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona,

(9th Cir. 1989), 7 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 8 2000). 9 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 10 “naked assertion[s],” “labels and conclusions,” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 11 cause of action.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). In other words, 12 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 13 statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). A claim upon which the 14 court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly,

. “A claim has facial 15 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable 16 inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,

(citation 17 omitted). When considering whether a complaint states a claim, the court must accept the 18 allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007) (per curiam), and construe the 19 complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Jenkins v. McKeithen,

, 421 20 (1969) (citations omitted). 21 II. Factual Allegations of the Complaint 22 Plaintiff alleges that defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha 23 violated his Eighth Amendment rights while he was incarcerated at California State Prison 24 Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that on August 25, 2023, defendants 25 Rocha and Mayfield escorted him to defendants Akins’ and Benavidez’s office. ECF No. 1 at 5. 26 Once there, plaintiff expressed safety concerns he had that he would be killed if he remained at 27 CSP-Sac.

Rocha, Mayfield, Akins and Benavidez refused to listen and escorted him back to 28 his cell.

On the way back, plaintiff refused to go to his cell and sat down on the ground.

1 In response, defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield and Rocha slammed him to 2 the ground, causing plaintiff to sustain injuries to his face, legs, and shoulders.

3 III. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 4 After conducting the screening required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and liberally construing 5 the allegations, the court finds that plaintiff has adequately stated an excessive force claim under 6 the Eighth Amendment against defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and 7 Rocha. 8 IV. Failure to State a Claim 9 The allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to state any claim for relief against 10 Benavidez, Akins, Mayfield, and Rocha for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff 11 makes nothing more than conclusory statements that his life was at risk if he remained at CSP- 12 Sac. Without more information, such as what the alleged risk was based on, plaintiff fails to 13 plausibly allege that there was a serious risk of harm to his safety and that defendants Benavidez, 14 Akins, Mayfield, and Rocha were aware of a serious risk of harm to plaintiff and ignored it. 15 Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege that Benavidez’s, Akins’, Mayfield’s and Rocha’s actions 16 resulted in any harm connected to any specific safety concern. 17 It appears to the court that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to fix these problems. 18 Therefore, plaintiff has the option of filing an amended complaint. 19 V. Options from Which Plaintiff Must Choose 20 Based on the court’s screening, plaintiff has a choice to make. After selecting an option 21 from the two options listed below, plaintiff must return the attached Notice of Election form to 22 the court within 21 days from the date of this order. 23 The first option available to plaintiff is to proceed immediately against defendants 24 Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha for use of excessive force. By 25 choosing this option, plaintiff will be agreeing to voluntarily dismiss his claims of deliberate 26 indifference to his safety against defendants Benavidez, Akins, Mayfield, and Rocha. The 27 court will proceed to immediately serve the complaint and order a response from 28 defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha. 1 The second option available to plaintiff is to file an amended complaint to fix the 2 problems described in Section IV. If plaintiff chooses this option, the court will set a 3 deadline in a subsequent order to give plaintiff time to file an amended complaint. 4 VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for Party Proceeding Without a Lawyer 5 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 6 not. At this early stage in the case, you have sufficiently stated Eighth Amendment claims 7 against defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha. You have not, 8 however, stated claims against Benavidez, Akins, Mayfield and Rocha for deliberate indifference 9 to your safety because your allegations of a serious risk are too conclusory. 10 You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your Eighth 11 Amendment excessive force claims against Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and 12 Rocha and voluntarily dismiss the other claims; or, (2) try to amend the complaint. To decide 13 whether to amend your complaint, the court has attached the relevant legal standards that may 14 govern your claims for relief. See Attachment A. Pay particular attention to these standards if 15 you choose to file an amended complaint. 16 CONCLUSION 17 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 19 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 20 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 22 appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 23 3. Plaintiff does not state deliberate indifference claims to his safety against defendants 24 Benavidez, Akins, Mayfield, and Rocha. 25 4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment excessive 26 force claims against defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha as set 27 forth in Section III above, or to file an amended complaint. 28 //// 1 5. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 2 || attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 3 || complaint or whether he wants to file an amended complaint. 4 6. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court will assume that he is choosing to 5 || proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend dismissal without prejudice of his 6 || Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Benavidez, Akins, Mayfield, and 7 || Rocha. 8 | DATED: May 28, 2025 ~ 9 AMhun—Clorne ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HUSSEIN KIETTY ALI, No. 2:25-cv-1360 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 14 BENAVIDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Check one: 18 _____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 19 against defendants Benavidez, Akins, Martin, Brewer, Mayfield, and Rocha without 20 amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by choosing this option, his Eighth 21 Amendment deliberate indifference claims against defendants Benavidez, Akins, 22 Mayfield, and Rocha will be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). 24 _____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint. 25 26 DATED:_______________________

27 Hussein Kietty Ali Plaintiff pro se 28 1 Attachment A 2 This Attachment provides, for informational purposes only, the legal standards that may 3 apply to your claims for relief. Pay particular attention to these standards if you choose to file an 4 amended complaint. 5 I. Legal Standards Governing Amended Complaints 6 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 7 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 8

(1976). Also, the complaint must specifically identify how each named 9 defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,

(9th Cir. 1981). 10 There can be no liability under

unless there is some affirmative link or 11 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 12

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 13 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

, 14 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 15 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 16 his amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. This is because, as a general rule, an 17 amended complaint replaces the prior complaint. Loux v. Rhay,

(9th Cir. 1967) 18 (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County,

(9th Cir. 19 2012). Therefore, in an amended complaint, every claim and every defendant must be included. 20 II. Legal Standards Governing Substantive Claims for Relief 21 A. Eighth Amendment - Deliberate Indifference 22 “Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical 23 abuse.” Hoptowit v. Ray,

(9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by 24 Sandin v. Conner,

(1995). “[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only 25 when two requirements are met. First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently 26 serious; a prison official’s act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized 27 measure of life’s necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan,

(1994) (internal quotation 28 marks and citations omitted). Second, the prison official must subjectively have a sufficiently 1 culpable state of mind, “one of deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.”

(internal 2 quotation marks and citations omitted). The official is not liable under the Eighth Amendment 3 unless he “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.”

. He 4 must then fail to take reasonable measures to lessen the substantial risk of serious harm.

at 5 847. Negligent failure to protect an inmate from harm is not actionable under § 1983. Id. at 835. 6 B. Eighth Amendment - Excessive Force 7 The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from inflicting cruel and unusual 8 punishment on inmates which has been defined as “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 9 pain.” Whitley v. Albers,

(1986). “[W]henever prison officials stand accused 10 of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the 11 core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 12 discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillan,

, 7 13 (1992). The court’s inquiry into an excessive force claim focuses on the extent of the prisoner’s 14 injury, the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of 15 force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to 16 temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson,

(1992) (quotation marks and 17 citations omitted). While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment 18 inquiry, it does not end it. Hudson,

. The malicious and sadistic use of force to 19 cause harm always violates contemporary standards of decency in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. Whitley,

. 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28