Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03245/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03245-0/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

CHAD SWANSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3245 EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL MARTEL, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

His declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by

separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the

appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it

does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant.

////

////

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 6
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 Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts

establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

(9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff names Michael Martel (Warden), Duncan Fallon (Chief Deputy Warden), L.B.

Reaves, Feltner and J.P. White as defendants, but he does not include any factual allegations

showing how any of them were personally involved in violating his federal rights. Plaintiff’s

complaint must therefore be dismissed. 

Plaintiff attempts to impose liability on defendants for injuries he sustained after he fell

over a “protruding 4 inch water spigot located on the inmate recreation yard.” To state a claim

that the conditions of imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and

unusual punishment, plaintiff must allege a specific individual was deliberately indifferent to

some basic human need such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or safety. See Wilson v.

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-04 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). A prison

official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk of injury or harm that

“is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36

(1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Plaintiff alleges defendants were

negligent at worst, which is not sufficient for purposes of an Eight Amendment violation. 

Plaintiff alleges that his medical needs have not been met, but he fails to link any

identifiable defendant to this claim. To state a claim defendants provided constitutionally

inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or omissions evidencing identified defendants

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 6
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

knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976); Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835-37. Plaintiff has not done so. The court also notes that neither

defendant’s negligence nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with the treatment he received

suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390,

394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff may also seek to impose liability on defendant Martel because Martel allegedly

responded to one of plaintiff’s administrative appeals. Plaintiff may not impose liability on a

defendant simply he played a role in processing plaintiff’s inmate appeals, as there are no

constitutional requirements regarding how a grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v.

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that prisoner’s claimed loss of a liberty

interest in the processing of his appeals does not violate due process because prisoners lack a

separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance system). 

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and 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). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

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. 

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).

////

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 3 of 6
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

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches,

explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses,

summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming

dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton,

523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to

read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. A long,

rambling pleading, including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible

connection to the alleged constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against

many defendants very likely will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and

an order dismissing plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these

instructions. 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing 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 to relief that is

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 4 of 6
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

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

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

pleading. Local Rule 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 an amended complaint he 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. Prison rules

require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may be punished by prison

authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3005.

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). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff 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 action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended

Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable

claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: May 3, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03245-EFB Document 7 Filed 05/03/10 Page 6 of 6