Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01545/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01545-0/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 

27 

28 

1 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEMONTA MADDOX, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Y. LARA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-1545 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

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

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). ECF No. 2, 5. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis 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 this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 1 of 7
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 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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 

“frivolous, malicious, or 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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 2 of 7
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 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must 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) (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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

III. Complaint 

The complaint sets forth three Fourteenth Amendment due process and racial 

discrimination claims against defendants Lara, Mitchell, Haynie, Haring, and Lynch. ECF No. 1. 

In Claim One, plaintiff alleges that Lara falsely wrote him up for indecent exposure and 

that her motivation was racial discrimination. Id. at 3. As a result of the rules violation report 

(RVR), plaintiff lost ninety days of credit. Id. In Claims Two and Three, plaintiff alleges that 

Haynie and Mitchell violated his due process rights and right to be free from discrimination when 

they conspired with Lara. Id. at 4-5. Haynie allegedly put plaintiff in administrative segregation 

based on the falsified RVR while Mitchell was the reviewing supervisor. Id. 

IV. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Falsifying Documents 

Plaintiff’s allegation that Lara violated his due process rights when she wrote him up on 

falsified charges fails to state a claim for relief. See Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 

1997) (“[T]here are no procedural safeguards protecting a prisoner from false retaliatory 

accusations.”). 

B. Discrimination 

It is a fundamental principle that “[p]risoners are protected under the Equal Protection 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious discrimination based on race.” Harrington 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 3 of 7
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 

v. Scribner, 785 F.3d 1299, 1305 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 

(1974)). However, while plaintiff alleges that he has been subject to racial discrimination, his 

conclusory allegation is insufficient to state a claim and he provides no facts demonstrating that 

any defendant’s conduct was motivated by his race. 

C. Due Process 

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation omitted). Rather, with respect to prison disciplinary proceedings 

that include the loss of good-time credits, an inmate must receive (1) twenty-four-hour advanced 

written notice of the charges against him, id. at 563-64; (2) “a written statement by the factfinders 

as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action,” id. at 564 (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted); (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence where doing so “will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 

goals,” id. at 566; (4) assistance at the hearing if he is illiterate or if the matter is complex, id. at 

570; and (5) a sufficiently impartial fact finder, id. at 570-71. In addition, due process requires 

that the disciplinary decision be supported by “some evidence.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 

445, 455 (1985). Plaintiff has not provided facts showing that he was denied any of the minimum 

protections guaranteed by Wolff, let alone that defendants were responsible for such denials. 

Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege due process violations in connection 

with his disciplinary proceedings, he fails to state a claim. 

To the extent plaintiff may be attempting to state a claim based upon his placement in 

administrative segregation, he also fails to state a claim. When an inmate is placed in 

administrative segregation, the Constitution requires only that he be given “an informal, 

nonadversary review of the information supporting [his] administrative confinement, including 

whatever statement [he] wishe[s] to submit, within a reasonable time after confining him to 

administrative segregation.” Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983), overruled on other 

grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “An inmate must merely receive some notice 

of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his views to the prison official charged 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 4 of 7
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 

with deciding whether to transfer him to administrative segregation. Ordinarily a written 

statement by the inmate will accomplish this purpose . . . .” Id. at 476. There are no allegations 

demonstrating that any defendant failed to provide plaintiff these protections. 

D. Conspiracy 

Plaintiff makes conclusory assertions about a conspiracy between all defendants. ECF 

No. 1 at 4-5. However, to state a conspiracy claim he cannot simply state that defendants 

conspired against him; plaintiff must instead allege facts demonstrating that there was “an 

agreement or ‘meeting of the minds’ to violate constitutional rights,” Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 

423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 

1539, 1540-41 (9th Cir. 1989)), and that an “actual deprivation of his constitutional rights resulted 

from the alleged conspiracy,” Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989)). Mere joint employment 

by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the conclusory allegation that 

defendants conspired to violate plaintiff's rights is insufficient to establish the common objective 

required for a conspiracy or that his rights were violated as a result. 

E. Personal Involvement 

“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient,” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(citations omitted). Furthermore, “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983,” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Plaintiff makes no 

allegations against Lynch and Haring and therefore fails to state any claims for relief against these 

defendants. It appears that these individuals, who are identified as a warden and a lieutenant 

respectively, were named as defendants based solely on their positions as supervisors. 

V. Leave to Amend 

The complaint does not state any cognizable claims for relief and plaintiff will be given an 

opportunity to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 5 of 7
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 

6 

he must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his 

constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). The complaint must also 

allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. 

Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and 

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. 

Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his first 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended 

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

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. That means you do not have to pay 

the entire filing fee now. You will pay it over time, out of your trust account. 

Your complaint will not be served because the facts you alleged are not enough to state a 

claim. Falsifying an RVR does not violate your right to due process and you have not provided 

any facts showing that any defendant discriminated against you because of your race. Although 

you allege that you lost good-time credit and were sent to administrative segregation, you do not 

allege any facts showing that you were not provided the procedural protections required. 

You may amend your complaint to try to fix these problems. Be sure to provide facts that 

show exactly what each defendant did to violate your rights or to cause a violation of your rights. 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 6 of 7
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 

7 

If you choose to file a first amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to 

bring. Once an amended complaint is filed, the court will not look at any information in the 

original complaint. Any claims and information not in the first amended complaint will not 

be considered.

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. 

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district. 

DATED: April 24, 2023 

Case 2:22-cv-01545-WBS-AC Document 7 Filed 04/24/23 Page 7 of 7