Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01792/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01792-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. NIEVES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01792 KJM CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

Case 2:19-cv-01792-DJC-CKD Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 5
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

2

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 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). Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is before the court for screening. 

The court finds that this case may proceed against defendants Nieves and Luang for 

excessive force claims arising under the Eighth Amendment, and against defendants Rowland, 

Mims, Aungst, and Abu for deliberate indifference claims also arising under the Eighth 

Amendment. (See ECF No. 1 at 2, listing Defendants 11-14.) With respect to the other 

defendants identified in plaintiff’s complaint, the facts alleged fail to state actionable claims. 

Plaintiff has two options: 1) he may proceed on the claims described above; or 2) make an 

attempt to cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint with respect to the other defendants and 

claims in an amended complaint.

If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, plaintiff should consider that in order to 

state an actionable claim, plaintiff must demonstrate with specific allegations how the conditions 

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). To establish a claim for retaliation under the First 

Amendment, a prisoner must show that a prison official took some adverse action against an 

inmate because of that prisoner’s protected conduct, that the action chilled the inmate’s exercise 

of his constitutional rights, and the action did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes 

v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005). 

Moreover, if a prison official’s allegedly retaliatory actions resulted in a disciplinary 

conviction, the prisoner’s claim is likely barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In 

Heck, the Supreme Court held that to recover damages for “harm caused by actions whose 

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that 

the conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Id. at 486–487. 

The Heck bar preserves the rule that federal challenges, which, if successful, would necessarily 

Case 2:19-cv-01792-DJC-CKD Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 5
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

3

imply the invalidity of incarceration or its duration, must be brought by way of petition for writ of 

habeas corpus, after exhausting appropriate avenues of relief. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 

749, 750–751 (2004). Accordingly, “a state prisoner’s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent 

prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target 

of the prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if 

success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its 

duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2005). If a plaintiff prevails on his 

retaliation claim based on a defendant’s allegedly false statements, a judgment in his favor will 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction and any resulting credit loss. See

Edwards, 520 U.S. at 644, 647. Consequently, plaintiff's §1983 action cannot proceed unless and 

until his disciplinary conviction is invalidated as required by Heck and Edwards.

In any amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some 

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo 

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that if he elects to amend, the court cannot refer to a prior 

pleading in order to make the amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an 

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 

as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, each 

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 21 days 

within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to 

proceed on claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Nieves, Luang, 

Rowland, Mims, Aungst, and Abu, or whether he wishes to file an amended complaint in an 

Case 2:19-cv-01792-DJC-CKD Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 5
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

4

attempt to cure the deficiencies in his original complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this 

action will proceed on the claims described above. 

Dated: April 6, 2020

2/calloway1792.op

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01792-DJC-CKD Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 4 of 5
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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMISI J. CALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. NIEVES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-01792 KJM CKD P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

HOW TO PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on Eighth Amendment claims against defendants 

Nieves, Luang, Rowland, Mims, Aungst, and Abu.

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file an amended complaint.

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:19-cv-01792-DJC-CKD Document 10 Filed 04/06/20 Page 5 of 5