Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02102-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL WALKER, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

C/O MOORE, 

 Defendant.

1:13-cv-02102-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT AND 

FOR CLARIFICATION OF 

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(Doc. 15.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT

I. BACKGROUND

Darryl Walker (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on December 19, 2013. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on April 11, 2014 requiring Plaintiff to 

either file an amended complaint or notify the court that he is willing to proceed only on the

claim found cognizable by the court against defendant Moore for use of excessive force under 

the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 8.) On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed written notice that he is 

willing to proceed only on the cognizable claim, and requesting that all other defendants be 

dismissed from this action. (Doc. 9.) On May 8, 2014, the court issued an order for this case to 

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 22 Filed 07/25/14 Page 1 of 5
2

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

proceed only against defendant Moore for use of excessive force, and dismissed all other 

defendants and claims from this action. (Doc. 11.) Defendant Moore (“Defendant”) waived 

service of process on June 25, 2014. (Doc. 14.)

On July 3, 2014, Defendant filed a motion for a more definite statement and for 

clarification of the court’s screening order. (Doc.15.) Defendant also requested an extension 

of time to file a response to the Complaint. (Id.) On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition 

to the motion. (Doc. 20.) On July 22, 2014, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition. (Doc. 

21.)

II. MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT – RULE 12(e)

A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is proper when the pleading at issue 

“is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive 

pleading.” Fed. R. Fed. P. 12(e). A motion for a more definite statement must be considered in 

light of the liberal pleading standards of 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)(2). 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint contains vague allegations which do not 

clearly identify which of the defendants allegedly slammed Plaintiff against the wall, and that 

the court’s screening order does not address this ambiguity. Defendant further argues that the 

court’s finding that Plaintiff was not resisting does not appear to have been clearly alleged in 

the Complaint. Defendant asserts that the Complaint describes the allegations of excessive 

force in three different locations, none of which clearly identify Defendant Moore as the one 

who allegedly slammed Plaintiff against a wall. (Doc. 1 at 3, 5, 7.) Defendant also argues that 

the allegations in the Complaint appear to contradict those in Plaintiff’s CDCR Form 602 

attached as an exhibit to the Complaint, because the Form 602 describes one extra Doe 

Defendant who could have been the one who allegedly slammed Plaintiff against a wall. (Doc. 

1 at 7.) Defendant claims that without clarification of the claims against him, he is unable to 

determine whether it would be appropriate to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim.

///

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 22 Filed 07/25/14 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that his Complaint gives a “somewhat consolidated 

version” of the allegations against Defendant Moore, who threatened and assaulted him. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion should not be granted because it will delay the 

commencement of discovery.

Discussion

The court has a duty to screen prisoner complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally Afrivolous 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). A complaint is required to contain Aa short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Rule 12(b)(6) 

standard requires a complaint to “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “We 

construe pro se complaints liberally and may only dismiss a pro se complaint for failure to state 

a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his 

claim which would entitle him to relief.” Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Iqbal did not alter the rule that, “where the petitioner 

is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, [courts should] construe the pleadings liberally and . 

. . afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 

2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). A plaintiff must link each defendant to the alleged § 

1983 violation, and the factual allegations must be sufficient to give the defendants fair notice 

of the claims against them. Ortez v. Washington Cnty., 88 F.3d 804, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint:

“June 20, 2011 CDC Officer Moore, defendant John Doe #1, #2, #3, and #4 

came to Plaintiff’s cell at Pleasant Valley State Prison, at 10:15 pm handcuffed 

Plaintiff and slammed into wall of the D-3 Unit building Officer Moore and 

defendant John Doe #1 bent back Plaintiff’s wrist causing extreme pain while 

John Doe #2, 3 and 4 stood by without intervention. Plaintiff then placed in a 

medical center “holding cage” until 11:15 pm, where he was released and 

returned unescorted to his cell. Plaintiff later treated by medical staff for 

sprained wrist and mental health staff for mental distress June 22, 2011.”

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 22 Filed 07/25/14 Page 3 of 5
4

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

(Complaint at 3 ¶4.) The court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found that “liberally 

construed, Plaintiff stated a claim for relief against Defendant Moore for excessive force [and] 

alleged facts indicating that Defendant Moore, while Plaintiff was restrained and offering no 

resistance, slammed Plaintiff into a wall.” (Id. at 2:23-25.)

Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint are vague and 

ambiguous has merit. While the court read the allegations to indicate that five of the 

defendants -- CDC Officer Moore and Doe defendants #1-4 – all took part in slamming 

Plaintiff into a wall, Defendant reasonably finds the allegations ambiguous as to which of the 

five defendants actually participated in the conduct.

1

 The discrepancy in facts between 

Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint and his allegations on the CDC Form 602 also supports 

Defendant’s argument that the Complaint contains ambiguities. Defendant also reasonably 

seeks clarification of the court’s finding that Plaintiff offered “no resistance” before being 

slammed into a wall. Plaintiff’s argument that discovery will be unduly delayed if he is 

required to submit a more definite statement is unpersuasive. Here, Defendant raises the issue 

of linkage between Defendant and the alleged § 1983 violation, not simply a mere lack of detail

obtainable during discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement shall 

be granted.

III. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Defendant also requests an extension of time to file a response to the Complaint. Good 

cause appearing, Defendant shall be granted an extension of time until thirty days from the date 

of filing of Plaintiff’s more definite statement, in which to file a response to the Complaint.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the court shall grant Defendant’s motion for a more definite 

statement. Plaintiff shall be required to file a more definite statement within thirty days, 

clarifying his allegations that defendants slammed him into a wall on June 21, 2011, 

specifically indicating which named defendant or defendants slammed him into a wall. 

 

1

Plaintiff’s allegation that Officer Moore and defendant John Doe #1 bent back his wrist, causing 

extreme pain and requiring medical treatment for a sprained wrist, also supports his claim for excessive force. 

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 22 Filed 07/25/14 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff shall also indicate whether he was offering resistance to defendants before he was 

slammed into a wall. Plaintiff shall title the statement “More Definite Statement,” use the case 

number 1:13-cv-2102-AWI-GSA-PC, and sign the statement under penalty of perjury.2 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement, pursuant to Rule 12(e), is 

GRANTED;

2. Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a more 

definite statement, as instructed by this order;

3. Defendant’s motion for clarification is GRANTED by this order;

4. Defendant is GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the file date 

of Plaintiff’s more definite statement, in which to file a response to the

Complaint; and

5. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that 

this case be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2 The more definite statement must be dated and signed by Plaintiff, attesting under penalty of perjury to 

facts known by Plaintiff, in substantially the following form: AI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed on (date) . (Signature).@ Such a declaration, if properly prepared, is admissible in 

federal court with the same effect as an affidavit. 28 U.S.C. ' 1746.

Case 1:13-cv-02102-DAD-EPG Document 22 Filed 07/25/14 Page 5 of 5