Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The case was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), he must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An initial partial payment of $11.50 is assessed pursuant to section 1915(b)(1). Additionally, he must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month's income credited to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward payments from his account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid.
Finding that plaintiff meets the financial limitations does not end the matter. The court must screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court has done so and finds that the complaint does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant.
Although plaintiff names three defendants, he does not allege what they did that gives rise to a cause of action. He claims that unidentified prison officials denied his request to be moved from High Desert State Prison (hereafter "HDSP") to an institution closer to his mother, who because of severe illness cannot visit plaintiff. He contends that this violated a First Amendment right to family visits. He also seems to claim that this violates his Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. He further claims that prison officials denied his appeal of this issue which, he says, was a violation of his due process rights.
Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen or person within the jurisdiction of the United Sates of a constitutional right.
42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A person deprives another "of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Unless plaintiff alleged facts connecting particular defendants to specific conduct, he cannot state a claim for relief.
With respect to the First Amendment, "a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system," Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1974). Thus, rules governing inmate visitation "are peculiarly within the province and professional expertise of corrections officials...." Pell, 417 U.S. at 827. It therefore appears to be within the discretion of prison officials to house plaintiff according to his classification and departmental budgetary constraints, even if the result affects whether family members can visit him. Thus, plaintiff has not stated a First Amendment claim.
To state a claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege a defendant denied plaintiff a specific right protected by the federal constitution without procedures required by the constitution to ensure fairness, or deliberately abused his power without any reasonable justification in aid of any government interest or objective and only to oppress in a way that shocks the conscience. Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 31 (1986); Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Prisoners have "no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance procedure." Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988). Neither do they have a federally-protected interest in being housed at a particular facility. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245-49 (1983). Under these standards, neither the handling of plaintiff's appeal nor the refusal to transfer him violated his federal rights.
The outcome with respect to plaintiff's attempt to pursue his claims under the Eighth Amendment is the same. To state a claim that the conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must allege that a specific individual was deliberately indifferent to some basic human need such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prison official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk of injury or harm that "is not one that today's society chooses to tolerate." See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Plaintiff's allegations do not establish any such conditions and are insufficient to state a claim under this standard.
To pursue this action, plaintiff must file an amended complaint.
Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff's action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff's allegations are true, and must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right.
In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that "nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff's claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) ("Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff must eliminate from plaintiff's pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that "firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted" in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff's pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long, rambling pleading, including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff's action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions.
A district court must construe a pro se pleading "liberally" to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However, the "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even ...