United States District Court, E.D. California
EMIEL A. KANDI, Plaintiff,
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE AS MOOT (ECF No. 20) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED, SUPERSEDING AND
OVERSIZED VERIFIED COMPLAINT, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 21, 22) SCREENING
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(ECF No. 23)
Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on June 8,
2016. (ECF No. 1.) On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a
request for judicial notice regarding various cases decided
in this Court and the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 20.) On May 1,
2017, prior to the Court screening the original complaint,
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended and
superseding verified complaint and a motion for leave to file
an oversized amended and superseding verified complaint. (ECF
Nos. 21, 22.) Plaintiff also lodged a first amended complaint
and attachments totaling more than six hundred (600) pages.
(ECF No. 23.)
motions for leave to file an amended complaint and for leave
to file an oversized amended complaint are HEREBY GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff's
first amended complaint on the docket, and it is currently
before the Court for screening.
Request for Judicial Notice
support of his original complaint, Plaintiff requests that
the Court take judicial notice of Torres-Ramirez v.
Benov, No. 1:13-cv-01165 LJO MJS (HC), 2013 WL 6798948
(E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013); Valenzuala v. Benov, No.
1:13-cv-00480 LJO MJS (HC), doc. 15, filed on November 21,
2013, adopted December 16, 2013, appeal dismissed, doc. 26,
filed March 10, 2014; Kasirem v. Benov, No.
1:13-cv-01026 LJO MJS (HC), 2013 WL 6798945 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
20, 2013); and Arredondo-Virula v. Adler, 510
Fed.Appx. 581 (9th Cir. 2013), as well as the Court's
“First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee
Case, (ECF No. 6). (ECF No. 20.)
asserts that these cases found that Management and Training
Corporation was a private corporation rather than a
government entity, and thus not entitled to discipline
inmates or entitled to qualified immunity. (Id., pp.
1-2.) Plaintiff argues that none of the defendants are
governmental entities or officers or employees of a
governmental entity, and therefore his complaint should not
be subject to screening. (Id., p. 3.) Plaintiff
requests that the Court expedite his case and order service
of the summons and complaint on all defendants.
(Id., pp. 1, 3.)
to filing his request for judicial notice, Plaintiff filed
his motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff's first amended complaint includes additional
defendants and additional causes of action. (ECF No. 21.)
Among the additional named defendants are Loretta Lynch,
former Attorney General; the United States Bureau of Prisons;
the United States Department of Justice; and the United
States of America. (ECF No. 23, pp. 13-14.) As Plaintiff now
“seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity, ” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, aside from Management and Training Corporation and its
officers and employees, Plaintiff's arguments are
inapposite. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for judicial
notice is HEREBY DENIED as moot, and the Court will proceed
with screening of the first amended complaint.
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or
any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall
dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . .
. the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §
factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Plaintiff
must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its
face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations are
accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not.
Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009);
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-57.
“plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings
facts . . ., ” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d
949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners
are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of
any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010). However, “the liberal pleading standard . .
. applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations,
” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9
(1989), “a liberal interpretation of a civil rights
complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that
were not initially pled, ” Bruns v. Nat'l
Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)
quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge
unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The “sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is
not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely
consistent with' a defendant's liability” fall
short of satisfying the plausibility standard.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at
is currently incarcerated at Lompoc Federal Correctional
Institution in Lompoc, California. The events in the first
amended complaint are alleged to have occurred while
Plaintiff was incarcerated at Taft Correctional Institution
in Taft, California.
complaint is one hundred and thirteen (113) pages in length,
names forty-two (42) defendants and ninety-nine (99) Doe
defendants, and includes thirteen (13) causes of action. The
Court declines to expend its limited resources to review and
summarize Plaintiff's allegations since the complaint
violates Rules 8 and 18, as discussed further below.
light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will
provide the legal standards for the claims it appears he is
attempting to state and will be granted leave to file a
second amended complaint that is no more than twenty-five
(25) pages long.
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotis, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and actions under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the
replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal
actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v.
Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). Under
Bivens, a plaintiff may sue a federal officer in his
or her individual capacity for damages for violating the
plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Bivens,
403 U.S. at 397. To state a claim a plaintiff must allege:
(1) that a right secured by the Constitution of the United
States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was
committed by a federal actor.
case, Plaintiff does not sue any individuals acting under the
color of state law, but instead sues certain employees of the
Federal government and other people. As a result, § 1983
has no application to this case.
names Does 1-99 as defendants. “As a general rule, the
use of ‘John Doe' to identify a defendant is not
favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d
637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff is advised that John Doe
or Jane Doe defendants (i.e., unknown defendants) cannot be
served by the United States Marshal until Plaintiff has
identified them as actual individuals and amended his
complaint to substitute names for John Doe or Jane Doe.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).
“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S.
of Rule 8, at both ends of the spectrum, warrant dismissal. A
violation occurs when a pleading says too little-the baseline
threshold of factual and legal allegations required was the
central issue in the Iqbal line of cases. See,
e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). The Rule is also violated, though, when a pleading
says too much. Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4
Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir.2011)
(“[W]e have never held -and we know of no authority
supporting the proposition-that a pleading may be of
unlimited length and opacity. Our cases instruct
otherwise.”) (citing cases); see also McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a
dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix,
confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiffs filed in
this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and
judges”). Plaintiffs complaint is not short and plain.
Plaintiffs complaint violates Rule 8 because Plaintiff
details all grievances he feels occurred during his time at
Taft Correctional Institution.
chooses to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff should
endeavor to make it as concise as possible in no
more than twenty-five (25) pages He should
merely state which of his constitutional rights he feels were
violated by each Defendant and its factual basis. Plaintiff
need not and should not cite legal authority for his claims
in a second amended complaint. His factual allegations are
accepted as true and need not be bolstered by legal authority
at the pleading stage. If Plaintiff ...