Kietty v. Walker et al

Filing 27

ORDER Directing Defendants to File a Response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/6/14. 30-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
A. WALKER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

21
22
23

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’ S AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 25]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to permission by the Court, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on September 22,

19
20

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2014.
Defendants Deathriage, Duty, Walker, Brumbaugh, Silva, and Astorga, filed an answer to
Plaintiff’s original complaint on May 30, 2014.
The Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

24

and finds that Plaintiff’s allegations state a cognizable claim for failure to protect against Defendants

25

Walker, Deathriage, Rumbles, and Silva, a cognizable claim for excessive force against Defendants

26

Walker, Asotrga, Deathriage, Brumbaugh, Silva, and Astorga, and a cognizable retaliation claim

27

against Defendants Deathriage and Silva. Although Plaintiff names Officer Rodriguez as a Defendant

28

in the amended complaint, Plaintiff fails to set forth sufficient factual allegations to state a cognizable
1

1

constitutional violation against him. The only allegation in the amended complaint references a verbal

2

threat by Rodriguez that he was going to “beat up” Plaintiff. Verbal harassment or abuse alone is not

3

sufficient to state a claim under section 1983, Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.

4

1987), and threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925

5

(9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Rodriguez,

6

and this Defendant will not be ordered served in this action.

7

Based on the foregoing,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order,

9

Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

13

October 6, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2