Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02323/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02323-2/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

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

ROBERT P. BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2323 DAD P

vs.

T. FORSTHY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $4.17 will be assessed by this

order. See 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 prison trust account and forward it to

Case 2:09-cv-02323-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 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 Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of

twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the

Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in

full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when 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). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “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 Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)). However, 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.” Bell Atlantic,

550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

Case 2:09-cv-02323-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 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

allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and

resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

Here, plaintiff’s allegations are vague and conclusory. Plaintiff does not provide

sufficient factual allegations concerning the alleged involvement of each named defendant in the

violation of his constitutional or statutory rights. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible

pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that

support the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which each named defendant engaged in that support his claims. Id. 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v.

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978). Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2),

the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended

complaint.

In addition, plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating how the conditions

complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis

v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). First, plaintiff must provide further allegations

concerning his confinement in administrative segregation. In this regard, it is not clear from

plaintiff’s complaint whether he is alleging that all prisoners were on lock-down or whether

plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation as a disciplinary measure. If plaintiff was in

administrative segregation because of a rules violation, he should so allege and may attach a copy

of the disciplinary report to any amended complaint he elects to file. Second, plaintiff must also

allege in greater detail the medical condition from which he suffers and how that condition was

impacted by the denial of outdoor exercise. Plaintiff may elect to attach to any amended

Case 2:09-cv-02323-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 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

complaint medical records describing his condition, including any physicians’ orders requiring

that he be provided daily outdoor exercise and any records showing how the deprivation of

outdoor exercise impacted plaintiff’s health. Third, as to plaintiff’s contention that the denial of

outdoor exercise was retaliatory, he must provide additional factual allegations that would

demonstrate that (1) prison officials retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights,

and (2) the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or

were not narrowly tailored to achieve those goals. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th

Cir. 1985). Plaintiff must also provide allegations that demonstrate that the protected conduct in

which he was engaged was a substantial or motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory acts. See

Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 285-87 (1977). 

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

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading 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. 

Finally, on March 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a letter with the court claiming that his

conviction was illegally obtained and requesting that the court grant him bail. The legality of

plaintiff’s incarceration and his entitlement to bail is not before this court. When a prisoner

challenges the fact or duration of his custody and a determination of his action may result in

plaintiff's entitlement to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. See

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Therefore, plaintiff’s request for bail will be denied and he is directed that he should proceed

with a separate habeas action if he wishes to challenge his underlying criminal conviction. 

/////

Case 2:09-cv-02323-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 7, 2010 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No.

8) 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 of $4.17. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to 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 to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must

use the form complaint provided by the Clerk of the Court; failure to file an amended complaint

in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed

without prejudice.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form

complaint for a § 1983 action.

6. Plaintiff’s March 16, 2010 motion for release on bail (Doc. No. 9) is denied.

DATED: April 28, 2010.

DAD:4

beny2323.14

Case 2:09-cv-02323-GEB-DAD Document 10 Filed 04/29/10 Page 5 of 5