Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01278/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01278-1/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 

JOSEPH TOWNSEND, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICK PARRISH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01278 AC 

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. 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-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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 

On July 20, 2020, while an inmate at High Desert State Prison, plaintiff alleges that 

several correctional officers used excessive force against him causing him to be injured. 

Specifically, he alleges that defendants Kingsley and Montoya struck him with a baton while he 

was laying on the ground. Defendant Parrish grabbed plaintiff’s throat and defendant Glenn 

continued to apply pressure to plaintiff’s legs even after he was told that he was hurting him. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Sevy, Parrish, and Ortiz made false statements in their reports 

about this incident. Defendant Riging reached for plaintiff in a very fast manner. 

IV. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

The complaint adequately states an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

defendants Kingsley, Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn. 

V. Failure to State a Claim 

Plaintiff’s allegations related to filing a false report do not establish a claim for relief against 

defendants Sevy, Parrish, and Ortiz. A prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity 

from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct that may lead to disciplinary sanctions. See 

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). As long as a prisoner is afforded 

procedural due process in the disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge generally fail 

to state a claim under section 1983. See Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140– 41 (7th Cir. 

Case 2:22-cv-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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 

1984). An exception exists when the fabrication of charges infringed on the inmate’s substantive 

constitutional rights, such as when false charges are made in retaliation for an inmate’s exercise 

of a constitutionally protected right. See Sprouse, 870 F.2d at 452 (holding that filing of a false 

disciplinary charge in retaliation for a grievance filed by an inmate is actionable under section 

1983). Plaintiff does not allege a cognizable claim against defendants Sevy, Parrish, and Ortiz for 

filing false reports because there is no allegation that the reports were written in retaliation for 

plaintiff’s prior grievances or other protected conduct. Accordingly, plaintiff fails to state a 

cognizable claim based on the issuance of false reports. 

 Nor is service appropriate for defendant Riging as the complaint merely indicates that he 

approached plaintiff and reached for him very fast. This is not sufficient to establish an Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claim. The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from 

inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on inmates which has been defined as “the unnecessary 

and wanton infliction of pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). There is no 

allegation that defendant Riging engaged in any action that caused plaintiff unnecessary and 

wanton pain. For this reason, the complaint is not sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim against defendant Riging. 

VI. Leave to Amend 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not state 

cognizable claims against defendants Riging, Sevy, Glenn, and Ortiz. However, it appears that 

plaintiff may be able to allege facts to remedy this and he will be given the opportunity to amend 

the complaint if he desires. Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Kingsley, 

Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claim or he may delay 

serving any defendant and amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the attached notice advising the court how 

he wishes to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he will be given thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claims against defendants Kingsley, Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn without amending the 

complaint, the court will proceed to serve the complaint. A decision to go forward without 

Case 2:22-cv-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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 

amending the complaint will be considered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice of 

defendants Riging, Sevy, Glenn, Ortiz and the false report claim against defendant Parrish. 

VII. Amended Complaint Standards 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, 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). Also, the complaint must 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 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 any prior complaints. 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 an amended complaint, 

any previous complaints no longer serve 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. 

VIII. 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. 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your Eighth 

Amendment excessive force claims against defendants Kingsley, Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn 

Case 2:22-cv-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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 

and voluntarily dismiss the other claims or (2) try to amend the complaint. If you want to go 

forward without amending the complaint, you will be voluntarily dismissing without prejudice 

your claims defendants Riging, Sevy, Glenn, Ortiz and the false report claim against defendant 

Parrish. You must complete the attached notification showing what you want to do and 

return it to the court. Once the court receives the notice, it will issue an order telling you what 

you need to do next (i.e. file an amended complaint or wait for defendants to be served). 

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 claims against defendants Riging, Sevy, Glenn, Ortiz, and the false report 

claim against defendant Parrish do not state claims for which relief can be granted. 

4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment excessive 

force claims against defendants Kingsley, Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn, as set forth in Section IV 

above, or to amend the complaint. 

5. Within fourteen days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court 

will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend 

dismissal without prejudice of defendants Riging, Sevy, Glenn, Ortiz, and the false report claim 

against defendant Parrish. 

DATED: April 9, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSEPH TOWNSEND, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PATRICK PARRISH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01278-AC 

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his Eighth Amendment excessive force claims 

against defendants Kingsley, Montoya, Parrish, and Glenn without amending the 

complaint. Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the complaint 

he is voluntarily dismissing without prejudice his claims against defendants Riging, Sevy, 

Glenn, Ortiz, and the false report claim against defendant Parrish pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Joseph Townsend 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:22-cv-01278-AC Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 Page 7 of 7