Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02684/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02684-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2684 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. K. BUTLER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On December 12, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend. On January 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. In it, plaintiff claims that

various defendants failed to protect him from violence at the hands of the Southern Hispanic

Prison Gang, used excessive force against him, retaliated against him and conspired to retaliate

against him. 

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

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim that defendant Lt. Vickery retaliated against

plaintiff for plaintiff’s refusal to be an informant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against defendants D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. 

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 8
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

Pitts or J. Olson.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Lt. Vickery and pursue his claims

against only that defendant or he may delay serving that defendant and attempt [again] to state a

cognizable claim against defendants D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. 

Pitts and J. Olson.

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

defendants D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson, he has

30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendant Lt. Vickery, against whom he

has stated a cognizable claim for relief, he must within 20 days 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 D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D.

Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson without prejudice. 

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

is brought in the right place and that plaintiff is entitled to relief if his 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). 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 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 8
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

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 his 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, 1177-78 (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). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

plaintiff must allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the

Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A prisoner claiming that his Eighth Amendment right to protection

from violence at the hands of other prisoners has been violated must allege that a specific

individual was deliberately indifferent to his safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). 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.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at

837. Plaintiff alleges that on June 11, 2002, he was transferred to Folsom State Prison with a

note in his file stating that his behavior should be monitored because plaintiff’s presence might

compromise institutional safety. Amended Comp. at 3. He alleges that he notified defendants

Lt. Clayton, D. K. Butler, Sgt. Zaniroli, and Lt. Vickery knew that plaintiff feared an attack by

the Southern Hispanic Prison Gang, but failed to place plaintiff into protective custody. Id. at 4-

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 8
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

6. Plaintiff does not allege that any member of that gang attacked him, and he now is housed at a

different prison.

To state a claim guards used force that violates the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must

allege wrongdoing that is objectively serious enough to violate the Eighth Amendment

committed with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7-9

(1992). It must appear from the complaint that the guards used force not “in a good faith effort

to maintain or restore discipline,” but instead “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose

of causing harm.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). “De minimis” use of force that

is not itself repugnant to the constitution does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Hudson, 503

U.S. at 9-10 (“Not every push or shove, even if it may seem unnecessary in the peace of the

judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights.”) (citation omitted). Plaintiff

alleges that on August 14, 2002, he repeatedly refused orders to return to his cell. Defendant Lt.

Steele asked plaintiff if he would resist correctional officers’ efforts to return him to his cell, and

plaintiff said that he would. Plaintiff then curled up on the floor to resist any such efforts. 

Thereafter, defendants Lt. Steele and Sgt. Zaniroli “jerked him off the floor and dragged him up

three flights of stairs,” and instead of dragging him up two more flights to plaintiff’s cell, they

ordered him into a holding cage. Plaintiff obeyed this order. 

To state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must allege that on a specified date an individual

state actor took adverse action against plaintiff for his engagement in a constitutionally protected

activity and the adverse action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of his rights and did not reasonably

advance a legitimate penological goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

2005); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985). A claim for conspiracy requires 

allegations of facts showing two or more persons intended to accomplish an unlawful objective

of causing plaintiff harm and took some concerted action in furtherance thereof. Gilbrook v. City

of Westminster, 177 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 1999); Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.

1998) (to state claim for conspiracy under § 1983, plaintiff must allege facts showing an

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 4 of 8
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

agreement among the alleged conspirators to deprive him of his rights); see also, Delew v.

Wagner, 143 F.3d 1219, 1223 (9th Cir. 1998) (to state claim for conspiracy under § 1983,

plaintiff must allege at least facts from which such an agreement to deprive him of rights may be

inferred). Plaintiff alleges that defendants Lt. Vickery, St. Steele, Sgt. Zaniroli conspired to

retaliate against him for refusing to become an informant by finding him guilty of a disciplinary

infraction whose penalty amounted to less than the time he actually spent in administrative

segregation awaiting resolution of the charge. Amended Comp. at 9. 

Plaintiff makes no allegations against J. Pitts or J. Olson. 

Measured against the standards explained above, plaintiff’s factual allegations are

insufficient to state a claim against D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. 

Pitts or J. Olson.

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. 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. 

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.

////

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 5 of 8
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

By signing a second 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.” 15 California Administrative Code § 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 defendant Lt. Vickery. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants D. K. Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. 

Pitts and J. Olson 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.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state a cognizable claim

against defendant Lt. Vickery. 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, with any and all attachments,

filed Janaury 16, 2007, one USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on defendant

Lt. Vickery. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

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

two copies of the endorsed January 16, 2007, complaint and attachments, if any. The court will

transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

Defendant Lt. Vickery 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 D. K.

Butler, R. Clayton, Lt. T. Steele, Sgt. D. Zaniroli, J. Pitts and J. Olson without prejudice.

Dated: March 14, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 7 of 8
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE GUTIERREZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2684 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. K. BUTLER, Warden, 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

 1 completed form USM-285 

 2 copies of the January 16, 2007 

 First Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02684-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 03/14/07 Page 8 of 8