Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00353/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00353-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0353 MCE EFB P

vs.

DAY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff

must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust

account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward

payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00353-MCE -EFB Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 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

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants Day and Yearwood. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendants Skinner, Kramer,

Win, or Tuggle. Plaintiff names those defendants in the caption and/or body of his complaint but

fails to state charging allegations against them. 

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Day and Yearwood and pursue his

claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state

a cognizable claim against defendants Skinner, Kramer, Win, or Tuggle.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Skinner, Kramer, Win, or Tuggle, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to

amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Day and Yearwood, against

whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must return materials

for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election

as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants Skinner, Kramer, Win, or Tuggle without

prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Case 2:07-cv-00353-MCE -EFB Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 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

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendants

Day and Yearwood. 

Case 2:07-cv-00353-MCE -EFB Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 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

4

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall

be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Skinner, Kramer, Win, or Tuggle are dismissed with leave

to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt

to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his

complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants Day and Yearwood. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court

shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed February 22, 2007, two

USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Day and Yearwood. 

Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and three copies of

the February 22, 2007, complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for

service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Day and Yearwood will be required

to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this

event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order

dismissing his defective claims against defendants Skinner, Kramer, Win, or Tuggle without

prejudice.

Dated: December 3, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00353-MCE -EFB Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 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

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C, BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0353 MCE EFB P

vs.

DAY, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the February 22, 2007 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00353-MCE -EFB Document 6 Filed 12/04/07 Page 5 of 5