Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00612/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00612-3/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

DALE OWEN DUSTIN,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0612 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

 TO SUBMIT USM 285 FORMS

 

A. K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

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

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the July 30, 2007, complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this civil

rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections

at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names the following individual defendants: R. Vogel; J.

Keener; T. Miranda;m. Martinez; McVay; Williams: Sgt. Beers; C/O Henderson; C/O Goodrich;

C/O Williams; C/O Chavez; CCI Means, A.K. Scribner.

The first amended complaint was filed in response to an earlier order dismissing

the certain of Plaintiff’s claims in the original complaint, and granting Plaintiff leave to file an

Case 1:05-cv-00612-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 4
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

amended complaint. In that order, the Court noted the following. The complaint in this action

consisted of a rambling narrative statement of facts, interspersed with legal arguments and

assertions. It appeared that Plaintiff’s claims stem from a cell removal on November 16, 2001,

that involved Plaintiff and his cellmate. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Renter and Vogel,

without provocation, opened the food port on Plaintiff’s cell and sprayed Plaintiff and his

cellmate with pepper spray. Plaintiff was then directed to walk to a shower. Plaintiff alleged

that at this point, “ knowing full well Plaintiff was covered with pepper spray, Vogel ordered

Plaintiff to spread his cheeks in order to disseminate or spray this chemical to all possible parts

of his body including to all parts of his groin region.” Plaintiff also alleged that the water used

to rinse off the pepper spray was “ice cold.” Plaintiff alleged that he was placed in a strip cell

for ten days. During that time, he was only allowed to wear boxer shorts and was deprived of

certain toiletry items.

The balance of the complaint consisted of rambling narrative and generalized

allegations. The statute under which this action proceeds plainly requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been

suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to

the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

As to Defendants Vogel and Renter, Plaintiff stateed a claim for excessive force. 

Regarding the balance of the claims, the court found the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague

and conclusory. The courts determined that the complaint did not contain a short and plain

statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible

Case 1:05-cv-00612-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 4
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

pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state 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 defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the remaining claims were be dismissed with leave to amend.

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff states a claim for relief on his excessive force

claim against Defendants Vogel, Keener, McVay, Williams, Henderson, Goodrich and Beers. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

SGT. R. VOGEL

LT. J. A. KEENER

C/O McVAY

C/O WILLIAMS

C/O HENDERSON

C/O GOODRICH

SGT. BEERS

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff seven USM-285 forms, seven

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and

a copy of the first amended complaint filed August July 30, 2007.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to

the court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

Case 1:05-cv-00612-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 4
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

c. Eight copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed July 30, 2007. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00612-AWI-WMW Document 16 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 4