Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00210/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00210-0/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

GLENN A. DUNN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0210 FCD EFB P

vs.

J. ZUBER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed this action from state court, see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b),

and it was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it

does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. To proceed, plaintiff must file an

amended complaint.

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and 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

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 1 of 6
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

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).

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 plaintiff’s 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, 1180 (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).

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 6
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 assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) when plaintiff refused to do a favor for defendant Y.

Fields, a female guard, as part of their “improper relationship,” defendant Fields openly called

plaintiff a coward and a snitch such that other prisoners in the housing unit could hear, and made

unspecified threats to plaintiff; (2) defendant Munos overheard plaintiff and Fields arguing and

heard Fields call plaintiff a snitch, yet failed to prevent Fields from engaging in unspecified

misconduct toward plaintiff; (3) defendant James Flint took no action on plaintiff’s behalf when

plaintiff told him about Fields’ threats and having called plaintiff a coward and snitch; (4) in

response to plaintiff’s grievance about defendant Fields, defendants J. S. Zuber and Brian

Holmes intentionally falsified investigation reports; (5) J. D. Brown filed a disciplinary charge

against plaintiff for “unlawful influence” after plaintiff told him about receiving contraband from

Fields, but failed to take any action against Fields; (6) Brian Holmes conducted a disciplinary

hearing without giving plaintiff an investigative officer, and was biased against plaintiff; (7)

defendant Hammans did not disclose to Zuber and Holmes facts about plaintiff’s improper

relationship with Fields which showed Fields to be at fault; (8) defendant Kernan knows of his

subordinates’ misconduct and failed to take any remedial measures because of a code of silence

has not taken any remedial measures. Plaintiff claims that these allegations are sufficient to state

a claim that these defendants violated his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments.

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law,

deprives a citizen or person within the jurisdiction of the United Sates of a constitutional right. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim that the conditions

of imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment,

plaintiff must allege a specific individual was deliberately indifferent to some basic human need

such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 3 of 6
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

03 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). 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.” See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993); Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim

under the Eighth Amendment. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987);

Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (ethnic slurs alone not cognizable under

42 U.S.C. 1983); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir.1987) (threatening language because

a prisoner exercises his right of access to court does not amount to a constitutional violation). 

Rather, plaintiff must allege he suffers, or is in immediate danger of suffering, a harm or injury

sufficiently serious to violate the Eighth Amendment. See, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994).

Plaintiff’s allegations about the grievance process and the appeals process implicate the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To state a claim for the deprivation of

procedural due process, plaintiff must allege a defendant deprived him of a liberty interest,

which may arise independently under the due process clause or as freedom from state

deprivation or restraint imposing “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to

the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Prisoners

have no federally recognized “legitimate claim of entitlement to a [prison] grievance

procedure." Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 898 (1988).

With respect to the First Amendment, it appears that plaintiff is trying to make out a

claim of retaliation. To state such a claim, 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 that 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).

////

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 4 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim under any of these theories.

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

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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. 

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.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he 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. Prison rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See 15 Cal.

Admin. Code § 3005.

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). 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 action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend

within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an original and one copy of the amended complaint, which

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 5 of 6
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

Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed for

failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the

court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: November 27, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00210-FCD-EFB Document 5 Filed 11/27/07 Page 6 of 6