Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-02799-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY JAMES COHEA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-00-2799 FCD PAN P

vs.

CHERYL K. PLILER, WARDEN,

et al.,

Defendants. AMENDED ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 18, 2006, this court issued an order granting plaintiff thirty days to

amend his complaint to state cognizable conspiracy claims against certain named defendants. On

September 12, 2006, defendants filed a request for clarification of that order. Defendants request

is well-taken. Good cause appearing, the court’s August 18, 2006 will be amended by this order.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed July 11,

2003. Plaintiff names twenty defendants in the second amended complaint. Therein, he claims

that defendant Pliler interfered with his constitutional right of access to the courts, that several

defendants retaliated against him, that all defendants except defendant Pliler engaged in various

conspiracies against plaintiff; and that two defendants violated plaintiff’s right to due process. 

/////

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 108 Filed 09/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 In addition to conspiracy claims, plaintiff raises retaliation claims against defendants 1

Colvin, Scarsella, Rendon, Michaels, Yamamoto, Akin, Flory, Scogin, and Kelley, and plaintiff

raises a due process claim against defendants Adams and Gold.

 All conspiracy claims, including those against defendants Colvin, Scarsella, Rendon, 2

Michaels, Yamamoto, Akin, Flory, Scogin, Kelley, Adams and Gold have been dismissed with

leave to amend. (See Order filed March 31, 2006.) Defendants Colvin, Scarsella, Rendon,

Michaels, Yamamoto, Akin, Flory, Scogin, Kelley, Adams and Gold will not be dismissed from

this action in the absence of a new complaint amending the conspiracy claims, as the operative

complaint contains other cognizable claims for relief against said defendants. See footnote 1,

supra.. However, plaintiff should include conspiracy claims against said defendants in any

motion to amend the complaint, or he will be precluded from proceeding further in this action on

any conspiracy claim against said defendants. 

2

Claims of conspiracy are the only claims raised against defendants McCargar, Baughman, White,

Sims, Sanders, Rosario, Adcock and Hill.1

By order filed March 31, 2006, defendant Pliler’s motion to dismiss pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was granted. In the same order, plaintiff’s claim against defendant

Adcock was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to

suit. In addition, the court dismissed all of plaintiff’s conspiracy claims with leave to amend. 

More than four months have passed since the March 31, 2006 order was filed and plaintiff has

not filed a proposed third amended complaint or otherwise sought to cure the deficiencies in the

conspiracy claims dismissed by the March 31, 2006 order. 

Since the non-cognizable conspiracy claims are the only claims raised against

defendants McCargar, Baughman, White, Sims, Sanders, Rosario, and Hill, either these

defendants should be dismissed from this action or plaintiff should move to file an amended

complaint which corrects the deficiencies of the present complaint concerning these defendants.

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days plaintiff shall move to amend the complaint currently on file

to state cognizable conspiracy claims against defendants McCargar, Baughman, White, Sims,

Sanders, Rosario, Hill, Colvin, Scarsella, Rendon, Michaels, Yamamoto, Akin, Flory, Scogin,

Kelley, Adams and Gold. Plaintiff shall file with this motion a proposed amended complaint. 

/////

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 108 Filed 09/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The proposed complaint shall be complete in itself without reference to any previous document

on file in this case. 

2. If the motion to amend and the proposed amendment are not filed within thirty

days from the date of this order, findings and recommendations shall issue recommending that

defendants McCargar, Baughman, White, Sims, Sanders, Rosario, and Hill be dismissed from

this action.

DATED: September 19, 2006.

12

cohe2799.dmdfamd

Case 2:00-cv-02799-GEB-EFB Document 108 Filed 09/20/06 Page 3 of 3