1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH B. GARCIA, Case No. 2:25-cv-2731-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. VANG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against defendants D. Vang, L. Becerra, and 18 an unnamed sergeant. After review of the complaint, I find that, for screening purposes, plaintiff 19 has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against defendant Becerra. 20 His other claims are non-cognizable as articulated. Plaintiff shall indicate whether he desires to 21 proceed only with his Eighth Amendment claim against Becerra, or delay serving any defendant 22 and file amended complaint. I will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 23 ECF No. 2. 24 I. Screening Standards 25 A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 26 entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 27 claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 28 1 claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 2 immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). 3 A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 5 face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The plausibility standard does not 6 require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 8 possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 9 identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr.,

, 10 1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 11 give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc.,

, 1264 12 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 13 The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 15 appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 16 would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). 17 However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 18 of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin.,

, 19 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents,

(9th Cir. 1982)). 20 II. Analysis 21 Plaintiff alleges that, on August 28, 2025, at the California Health Care Facility 22 (“CHCF”), his cellmate beat him severely. ECF No. 1 at 3. He claims that, during the attack, 23 defendant Becerra was away from his station preparing food and did not respond to his cries for 24 help for at least four minutes.

This claim against Becerra is, for screening purposes, sufficient 25 to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim. Plaintiff’s claims against D. 26 Vang, the facility warden, and an unnamed sergeant who was Becerra’s superior, are 27 insufficiently pled, however. He alleges only that these supervisory defendants had responsibility 28 for safety and security at CHCF.

There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1 | 1983, and a supervisor is responsible for only his or her own action or inaction. Here, plaintiff 2 | has not specifically alleged what action or inaction these defendants were responsible for, and 3 | how it led to the harm that befell him. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 4 Plaintiff may either proceed only with his claim against Becerra, or he may delay serving 5 | any defendant and file an amended complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint must be 6 | titled “First Amended Complaint,” be complete in itself, and will supersede the current complaint. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 8 1. Within thirty days, plaintiff may confirm his intent to proceed only with the Eighth 9 | Amendment claim against defendant Becerra or, within that same time, file an amended 10 | complaint with the understanding that doing so will delay service of any defendant. 11 2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 12 | order. 13 3. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 | 1 Sty — Dated: _ October 22, 2025 17 JEREMY D. PETERSON 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28