Cooper v. Arizu

1
25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANTEA COOPER,
CDCR #BT-9633,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ARIZU, Correctional Officer,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
ORDER (1) SCREENING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) & 1915A(b) and
(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO
EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) & Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3)
On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff Dantea Cooper, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a
civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). (See ECF Nos. 1–2.) On September 8, 2025, the Court granted
Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and dismissed the Complaint, which appeared to contain
claims for retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment, for failure to state a claim pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). 	(See ECF No. 5.) 	Plaintiff was notified of the
deficiencies of the pleading and was granted leave to amend. (See id. at 4–7.)
Plaintiff has now filed a First Amended Complaint. 	(See ECF No. 9 (“FAC”).)
Plaintiff indicates he is abandoning the cruel and unusual punishment claim and is
proceeding only with his retaliation claim. (Id. at 6–7.)
Case 3:25-cv-01793-TWR-BJW Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. 	Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
A. 	Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding IFP, his FAC requires a pre-Answer
screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court
must sua sponte dismiss a prisoner’s IFP complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (discussing 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).
“The standard for determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for failure to state a claim.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2012) (noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard applied in the
context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”) Rule
12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009),
quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “Determining whether
a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires
the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere
possibility 	of 	misconduct” 	or 	“unadorned, 	the 	defendant-unlawfully-harmed 	me
accusation[s]” fall short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “creates a private right of action against individuals who,
acting 	under color of state law, violate federal 	constitutional or 	statutory 	rights.”
Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). 	Section 1983 “is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights
elsewhere conferred.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393–94 (1989) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Case 3:25-cv-01793-TWR-BJW Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. 	Allegations in the FAC
Plaintiff alleges in his FAC that he:
Constitutionally 	invoked 	his 	14th 	Amendment 	right 	by 	refusing
medical when there were no penological interest. Defendant Arizu, because
of Plaintiff’s refusal of medical care, proceeded to threaten Plaintiff [to]
confiscate his belongings if he continued to refuse. 	CDCR conducted an
investigation found my allegations had merit and I was transferred to another
prison. 	The Court ruled in White v. Napolean (1990) that any retaliation
against an inmate for refusing medical care violates the 14th Amendment and
is actionable under 1983.
(FAC at 3.) 	Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $18 in lost wages and
$21,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 5.)
C. 	Analysis
“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails
five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an
inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled
the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably
advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (2005)
(footnote omitted). 	Plaintiff must also allege a retaliatory motive, that is, a causal
connection between the adverse action and his protected conduct. See Watison v. Carter,
668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). 	The alleged adverse action need not itself be an
independent constitutional violation. 	See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.
1995) (stating that to prevail on a retaliation claim, plaintiff “need not establish an
independent constitutional interest” was violated); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531–32
(9th Cir. 1985) (finding a transfer to a different prison constitutes adverse action).
Plaintiff identifies the adverse action taken against him in retaliation for his refusal
to report to medical was his transfer to another prison, and alleges the transfer was due to
Defendant Arizu’s threat to confiscate his belongings if he continued to refuse medical
care. (See FAC at 3, 10–12.) He states that his transfer was due to safety concerns arising
from a finding of overfamiliarity with staff directly caused by Arizu’s threat, as confirmed
Case 3:25-cv-01793-TWR-BJW Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
through the administrative appeal process. 	(Id. at 3, 15–18.) 	In sum, Plaintiff plausibly
alleges an adverse action was taken against him in being transferred to another prison due
to safety concerns arising from an overfamiliarity with staff as a result of Defendant Arizu
threatening to confiscate his personal property in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his
constitutional right to refuse medical care.
These allegations are sufficient to survive the “low threshold” of the screening
required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b) with respect to a retaliation claim against
defendant Arizu, the only claim against the only Defendant named in the FAC. 	Watison,
668 F.3d at 1112. As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect service
of the summons and the First Amended Complaint on his behalf against Defendant Arizu.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and
perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that
service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is
authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”)
II. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court:
1. 	DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 9) for Defendant Arizu and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank
U.S. Marshal Form 285. The Clerk will provide Plaintiff with certified copies of the First
Amended Complaint and summons for use in serving Defendant. Upon receipt of this “In
Forma Pauperis Package,” Plaintiff must complete the USM Form 285 as completely and
accurately as possible, include an address where Defendant may be found and/or subject
to service pursuant to S.D. Cal. CivLR 4.1(c), and return the forms to the United States
Marshal according to the instructions the Clerk provides in the letter accompanying the In
Forma Pauperis Package.
2. 	ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint
and summons upon Defendant Arizu as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285. Costs
Case 3:25-cv-01793-TWR-BJW Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-cv-1793-TWR (BJW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(3).
3. 	ORDERS Defendant, once served, to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint and any subsequent pleading Plaintiff files in this matter in which Defendant is
named as a party within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(a) and 15(a)(3). 	See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (stating that while
defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,”
once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening, defendants are required to respond).
4. 	ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been completed by the U.S. Marshal, to
serve upon Defendant, or if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendant’s
counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the
Court’s consideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every
original document sought to be filed with the Clerk, a certificate stating the manner in
which a true and correct copy of that document has been served on Defendant or their
counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 5.2. Any document received by
the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, or which fails to include a
Certificate of Service upon a Defendant, or their counsel, may be disregarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01793-TWR-BJW Document 12 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5