United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND (DOC. 15) 21-DAY DEADLINE
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation
of his rights when he was attacked by another inmate while he
was on the phone. Because he fails to link any of the
defendants to his factual allegations, the First Amended
Complaint is DISMISSED and Plaintiff is granted one last
opportunity to file an amended complaint to address the
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,
malicious, 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);
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint
complains of an incident that occurred at California
Correctional Institute (“CCI”) in Tehachapi,
California and now names the following defendants: CCI Warden
Kim Holland; Associate Warden T. Haak; Captain Dave Crounse;
Lieutenant Luis Machado; Sergeant D. Bonnfil; Roger Groves,
CDW; Sharon McKay, ERO: Karen Dugan-Berry, LRA: Lieutenant S.
Archuleta; CCI Jane Doe; and CCII Jane Doe.
alleges that he was using the phone at his assigned time when
he was attacked by a “level 4 inmate.” Plaintiff
ended up being shot twice by the tower officer with a
“block gun” and sprayed with 2 cans of
pepper-spray during the incident. Plaintiff alleges that he
was taken out of a side door and dragged across the yard
where he was kicked and yelled at by “C/O's.”
The C/Os picked him up and pushed him down and put him in the
program office cage, stripped naked. Plaintiff was
“questioned by staff” and the nurse told
Plaintiff that the inmate who attacked him was drunk.
Plaintiff was taken to the A Yard SHU that night and could
not see at all due to the pepper spray. He also could not use
his left leg because of being shot. Plaintiff alleges he was
not given medical attention for two days and wore
“paper underwear for 15 days, no shower.”
Plaintiff alleges he was Level II and if he had been housed
in the correct housing the incident would not have happened.
Plaintiff alleges that he did not belong on the Level 3 yard
and that “Jane Doe custody counselor knew my custody
level ‘tags' were placed on my cell door.”
“Jane Doe Case Records Manager CCI knew”
Plaintiff was not placed in the correct housing unit.
“All other staff” allegedly put Plaintiff's
“life in harms way.” Plaintiff seeks monetary
damages and requests the “115 write up” and
everything about this incident be removed from his C-File.
has not stated any cognizable claims as he fails to link any
of the individuals named as defendants to his factual
allegations. However, Plaintiff may be able to correct the
deficiencies in his pleading. Thus, he is being given the
pleading requirements, the legal standards for claims he has
identified, and ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY to amend his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil
actions, with limited exceptions, " none of which
applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 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. Pro. 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. at 512.
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.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), 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
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009);
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
“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, 129 S.Ct. at 1949;
Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should
make it as concise as possible in twenty-five pages or less.
He should merely state which of his constitutional rights he
feels were violated by each Defendant and its factual basis.