Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01413-5/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

DuPREE LAMONT ADKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1413 LKK EFB P

vs.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave

to amend. On September 22, 2006, plaintiff filed a second-amended complaint. On July 23,

2007, plaintiff filed a request to amend his second-amended complaint. This request is defective,

as plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 15-220, which provides that an amended

complaint “shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior

or superseded pleading.” If plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he may do so according to

the court’s instructions as set forth below.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s September 22, 2006, second-amended complaint and,

for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states a cognizable retaliation claim

against defendants Sanchez and Armoskous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 9
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

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

cognizable claim against defendants Prosper, Grannis, Surgess, Zielen, Shahdeh, Jennings,

Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell, Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or Zimmer. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Prosper denied his appeal without investigation, and that

defendants Grannis, Surgess, and Zielen denied his appeals. To the extent plaintiff attempts to

state a claim relating to the processing of his appeals, he is advised that, “[A prison] grievance

procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” 

Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8,

10 (N.D. Ill.1982)); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (Liberty interests created by

state law are generally limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant

hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”); Ramirez v. Galaza,

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of appeals because no

entitlement to a specific grievance procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir.

2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner); see also Mann v.

Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). “Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty

interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Azeez

v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F.Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 1986). 

The failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation, and a prison official’s

involvement and actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis

for liability under a § 1983 action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. There is no constitutionally

protected right to an appeals process and there is no constitutionally protected right to a

particular outcome. Even if plaintiff’s inmate appeals concerned the due process violations that

allegedly occurred in conjunction with plaintiff’s disciplinary hearings, defendants’ actions in

reviewing and issuing decisions on the appeals do not provide a basis upon which to impose

liability under section 1983.

////

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 9
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

Plaintiff claims that defendants Shahdeh and Jennings conspired with defendant Alheiser

to “stack reports.” Plaintiff does not explain what it means to “stack reports,” nor does he

describe how this action amounts to a constitutional violation. This allegation does not state a

cognizable claim against these defendants.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ansell found him guilty of a rules violation report that had

been voided. Plaintiff does not allege that any harm arose from this guilty finding and therefore

plaintiff fails to state a claim against defendant Ansell. 

Plaintiff claims that defendants Ransdell, Harvey, and Leo denied him medical treatment. 

plaintiff is advised that the Supreme Court has held that inadequate medical care does not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rose to

the level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,

106 (1976). In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.1980) (citing Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. at 105-06). Plaintiff has failed to identify any harm resulting in his denial of

treatment and has failed to allege facts suggesting that these defendants were deliberately

indifferent to a serious medical need.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hutson refused to provide plaintiff with valid

identification, rendering him unable to participate in various programs that require valid

identification, and that defendant Tinnel condoned this act. A prisoner does not have a

constitutional right to participate in prison work or rehabilitative programs. Rizzo v. Dawson,

778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a cognizable claim

against defendants Hutson and Tinnel. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Zimmer placed him on program failure “even though he

didn’t meet the criteria.” Plaintiff does not explain the program failure defendant Zimmer

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 9
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

deemed him to be in, nor does he explain what the consequences of this program failure were. 

Plaintiff does not state why he did not “meet the criteria” for being considered in program

failure. Further, a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to receive a particular security

classification. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 87 fn.9 (1976); Hernandez v. Johnston, 833 F.2d

1316, 1318 (9th Cir.1987). Plaintiff has therefore failed to state a cognizable claim against

defendant Zimmer.

To the extent that plaintiff is attempting to state claims based on retaliation, plaintiff is

advised that retaliation by prison officials for the exercise of a prisoner’s constitutional right of

access to the courts violates the federal constitution. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th

Cir. 1995); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir. 1995); Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d

1395, 1402 (7th Cir. 1994); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164 (5th Cir. 1995); Rizzo v.

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985).

In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts which suggest that

retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” factor

behind the defendant’s conduct. Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th

Cir. 1989); Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532. The plaintiff must also plead facts which suggest an absence

of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. Pratt at 806 (citing

Rizzo, 778 F.2d at 532). Verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim. See

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats of bodily

injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing

the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions of

hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner must “allege specific facts showing retaliation

because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560,

562 (n.1) (10th Cir. 1990). 

In Pratt, the Ninth Circuit concluded that in evaluating retaliation claims, courts should

defer “to prison officials in the evaluation of proffered legitimate penological reasons for

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 9
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

conduct alleged to be retaliatory.” Pratt, 65 F.3d at 807 (citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995)).

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Sanchez and Armoskous and pursue

his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to

state a cognizable claim against defendants Prosper, Grannis, Surgess, Zielen, Shahdeh,

Jennings, Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell, Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or Zimmer.

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

defendants Prosper, Grannis, Surgess, Zielen, Shahdeh, Jennings, Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell,

Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or Zimmer, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend

his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Sanchez and Armoskous,

against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must 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 Prosper, Grannis,

Surgess, Zielen, Shahdeh, Jennings, Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell, Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or

Zimmer without prejudice. 

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

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s 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). 

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

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 5 of 9
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

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

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). 

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.

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 6 of 9
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

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.

By signing a third 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 defendants Sanchez and Armoskous. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants Prosper, Grannis, Surgess, Zielen, Shahdeh, Jennings,

Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell, Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or Zimmer 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 cognizable claims against

defendants Sanchez and Armoskous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 7 of 9
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

8

Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed September 22,

2006, 2 USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Sanchez and

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

Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and 3

copies of the endorsed September 22, 2006, complaint. The court will transmit them to the

United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Sanchez

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 Prosper, Grannis, Surgess, Zielen,

Shahdeh, Jennings, Alheiser, Ansell, Ransdell, Harvey, Leo, Hutson, Tinnel, or Zimmer without

prejudice.

Dated: October 24, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 8 of 9
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

9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DuPREE LAMONT ADKINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1413 LKK EFB P

vs.

J. WOODFORD, 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

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Second Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01413-LKK -EFB Document 30 Filed 10/24/07 Page 9 of 9