Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00719/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00719-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JARVON D. GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-0719 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On August 19, 2022, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

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 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be 

dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00719-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 03/07/23 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

27

28

2

If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff must submit a second amended complaint that is 

legible. Some key parts of plaintiff’s amended compliant are impossible to decipher. Also, 

plaintiff’s amended complaint is mostly vague and conclusory. In terms of stating a claim upon 

which relief can be granted, plaintiff must identify specific actions taken by a particular defendant 

that led to a discernable injury suffered by him. As plaintiff has already been informed, plaintiff 

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 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). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants are responsible for him being attacked by other inmates. 

Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at 

the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal quotation 

marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). However, “not . . . every injury suffered by one prisoner at 

the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for 

the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. A prison official may be held liable for an assault suffered by 

one inmate at the hands of another only when the assaulted inmate can show that the injury is 

sufficiently serious, and that the prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. 

Id. at 834, 837. Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate 

indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future 

health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation omitted). To be deliberately indifferent, the “official must 

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious 

harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Id. 

Plaintiff also asserts that defendants retaliated against him for plaintiff’s use of the inmate 

grievance procedure. In order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must point to facts 

indicating a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff cannot simply assert he utilized the 

grievance process and then something adverse happened to him. 

Further, plaintiff asserts that he was improperly found guilty at prisoner disciplinary 

proceedings. Any challenge to prisoner disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the revocation 

Case 2:22-cv-00719-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 03/07/23 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

27

28

3

of good conduct sentence credit must be brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not a 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the revoked sentence credit has been restored. See Edwards v. 

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-47 (1996). In order to state a cognizable claim for violation of due 

process during prisoner disciplinary proceeding which did not result in the revocation of good 

conduct sentence credit, plaintiff must allege facts which suggest that he was deprived of a 

protected liberty interest. Such liberty interests are “generally limited to freedom from restraint 

which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to 

protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, [citations omitted], nonetheless imposes 

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” 

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

While it is not clear, it appears that plaintiff also challenges the denial of parole. When a 

state prisoner challenges the legality of his custody, and the relief he seeks is the determination of 

his entitlement to an earlier or immediate release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 

corpus which plaintiff would seek under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 

500 (1973). Also, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages for having been denied parole, plaintiff is 

informed he cannot proceed on a § 1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of 

his conviction or sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second

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 second amended complaint must bear 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:22-cv-00719-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 03/07/23 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

27

28

4

the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure 

to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: March 6, 2023

1

gree0719.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00719-TLN-CKD Document 12 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 4