Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01289/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01289-0/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

RAYMOND PAUL NELSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1289 LKK DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 72-302

and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court finds that plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis will

therefore be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $0.93 will be assessed by this

order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate

agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty

percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his prison trust account. These payments

must be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff has sued dozens of staff employed at High Desert State Prison. Federal

courts are required to screen all complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against any

governmental entity or any officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” claims that

fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and claims that seek monetary relief from

defendants who are immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984);

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). For

purposes of reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and

resolve doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of each defendant and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976).

“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Supervisory

personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory

of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the

causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. 

See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441

(9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff has captioned his pleading “Complaint – V.C.G.C.B.” followed by an

unintelligible citation and the phrase “Responsibility of all the Employees Named in Statement’s

[sic].” In the section of the caption designated for defendants’ names, plaintiff has listed D.L.

Runnels, Warden of High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”); M. McDonald, Acting Chief Deputy

Warden of HDSP; M. Wright, Acting Facility Captain at HDSP; and M. Dangier, Correctional

Counselor I. On the second page of the form, in the section in which the plaintiff is required to

provide the full name of each defendant and the defendant’s position and place of employment,

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

plaintiff has listed the same four defendants along with Sergeant Amero, Sergeant A. Smith,

Sergeant Willcost, “the 3rd Watch acting participating lieutenant, all other correction officers

named in this case filed in letter and documents submitted.” (Compl. at 2.)

Plaintiff is advised that all defendants must be identified in the caption of his

pleading, and all defendants must be named, with position and place of employment, in the

section of the form designated for that purpose. The court will not search through plaintiff’s 97-

page filing to discover the names of additional defendants. The court will screen plaintiff’s

complaint solely with regard to claims alleged against the four defendants listed in the caption

and the three additional defendants named on the second page of the pleading.

In the section of the complaint in which the plaintiff is required to set forth a brief

statement of the facts of the case, describing how each defendant is involved and including dates

and places without legal argument, plaintiff offers the following wholly inadequate statement of

his claim:

Public Health and Welfare 42 USC § 1983 Civil Rights Section

1983 of Title 42 United States Code Key 1213.10. The Eighth

Amendment of the United States Constitution protects prisoners

against cruel and unusual punishment during confinement that led

to injury.

(Compl. at 3.) In the section in which the plaintiff is required to set forth the relief he seeks,

plaintiff has entered: “California Victim’s Compensation for responsible for damage and the

circumstances that led to injury: (See) Government claims forms and letter of facts.” (Id.)

Plaintiff’s 3-page form complaint is dated June 8, 2006. The form complaint is

followed by a 14-page attachment dated October 2, 2005, and 80 pages of exhibits.

In the 14-page attachment, plaintiff begins with four pages of conclusory

contentions. He invokes the Eighth Amendment, the First Amendment, the federal Religious

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and numerous state law provisions. Plaintiff asserts

that staff have punished him for failure to comply with grooming standards despite the fact that

he is exercising his rights to express and exercise his religion. (Compl. at 4-7.)

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

In subsequent pages, plaintiff alleges the following facts: on June 25, 2003, he

was transferred from CSP-Solano, a level 3 institution, to HDSP, a level 4 institution, for failing

to comply with grooming standards after CSP-Solano staff “stockpiled” disciplinary violations

and increased his points from 32 to 62; at HDSP, he has suffered unfavorable decisions

concerning his classification and housing, has received inconsistent access to yard, showers, and

religious services, and has been threatened repeatedly with retaliatory transfers to a more

dangerous yard at HDSP; on July 19, 2005, he and his cellmate were transferred, despite their

protests concerning safety, from B yard to D yard; defendant Sergeant Smith refused to listen to

the inmates’ assertions concerning their safety and forced them to go to D yard; on D yard,

plaintiff and his cellmate were each assaulted on August 9, 2005, in separate incidents about half

an hour apart; plaintiff received a broken nose and injuries to his eye and head, with a possible

cracked right cheek bone; he was rushed to the emergency care unit but did not receive proper

medical care; he and his cellmate were transferred back to B yard for their safety; Plaintiff’s

allegations concerning various interviews, classification committee hearings, and inmate appeals

do not indicate any further harm to plaintiff. (Compl. at 7-17.)

The undersigned finds that plaintiff’s complaint appears to state a cognizable

Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Sergeant A. Smith. Plaintiff has not alleged any

facts at all against defendant Runnels and has not alleged facts that show any constitutional

violation by defendants McDonald, Wright, Dangier, Amero, and Willcost. Although plaintiff

has stated a cognizable claim against defendant A. Smith, plaintiff has not requested relief that

can be obtained from that defendant in this court. Plaintiff’s characterization of his pleading as a

“Complaint - V.C.G.C.B.” and his request for compensation from “California Victims

Compensation” appear to reflect plaintiff’s erroneous belief that this federal court is a forum in

which he can obtain monetary compensation from a state administrative agency.

The court finds that all of plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed. Plaintiff has not

properly identified all defendants, has not alleged specific facts showing that each defendant

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

violated one or more of plaintiff’s federal rights, and has not requested relief that can be granted

in this court. The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are so vague and conclusory with regard to

most of plaintiff’s claims that the court cannot determine whether this action is frivolous or fails

to state a claim for relief. The court has determined, however, that the complaint does not

contain the short and plain statement required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, every complaint must give each

defendant fair notice of the claims against him or her and the specific conduct on which the

claims are based. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity specific acts or omissions by each

defendant that support plaintiff’s legal claims against that defendant. See id. 

Because plaintiff has not complied with the requirements of Rule 8, the complaint

must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint that cures

the defects of the original complaint. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, the pleading must

show how the conditions and acts complained of resulted in a deprivation of one or more of

plaintiff’s federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended

complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved with the

violations of his rights.

The court cannot refer to plaintiff’s original pleading in order to make his

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

incorporating or referring to any prior pleadings. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended

complaint filed pursuant to this order will supersede plaintiff’s original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading will no longer serve any function in the case. Accordingly, in an amended complaint, as

if it were the original complaint filed in this action, plaintiff must fully identify each defendant in

the caption and in the appropriate section of the complaint and fully allege each claim against

each defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

Plaintiff’s complaint was accompanied by a motion for appointment of counsel. 

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel

to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S.

296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary

assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017

(9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present

case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

Plaintiff has submitted a series of inappropriate filings. On July 14, 2006,

plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Adopt and File Proceeding Documents.” Plaintiff

asks the court to “adopt and file these documents in his case as a [sic] action served.” Attached

are 36 pages of exhibits. Plaintiff is advised that he should retain evidentiary material in his own

possession. The court is not a repository for the parties’ documents, and plaintiff should refrain

from attached evidentiary material to his amended complaint. If plaintiff files an amended

complaint that states at least one cognizable claim against at least one defendant and seeks

appropriate relief from that defendant, plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with this case. 

Plaintiff’s evidence should be submitted to the court only when needed to support an appropriate

motion by plaintiff, to support plaintiff’s opposition to a motion filed by a defendant, or to prove

plaintiff’s claims at trial. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

On September 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “For clarification of

Status of (VCGCB) Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (Denial) and to

Expand Motions.” This unsigned document appears to be a supplement to plaintiff’s motion for

appointment of counsel. The motion will be denied.

On September 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “Verification of 602

Appeals Which Has a Significant Adverse Affect on Petitioner.” Plaintiff’s list of appeals

refused by staff is not needed at this time, and the document will be disregarded.

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

On October 4, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “‘Proof’ (First Amendment

Religious Liberty) See Complaint page B of 1 of 12 in plaintiff lawsuit case under the Civil

Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” If plaintiff attempts to allege a First Amendment or RLUIPA

claim against any defendant in his amended complaint, plaintiff should allege facts concerning

his religion, his religious sincerity, and the practice of his religion, but he should not submit

separate proof or documentation. The document titled “Proof” will be disregarded.

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

1. Plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis (#2) is

granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.93. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s June 12, 2006 motion for appointment of counsel (#3) is denied.

4. Plaintiff’s July 14, 2006 motion to adopt and file documents (#6) is denied.

5. Plaintiff’s September 20, 2006 motion for clarification of status and to expand

motions (#7) is denied.

6. Plaintiff’s September 25, 2006 verification of inmate appeals (#8) will be

disregarded.

7. Plaintiff’s October 4, 2006 proof regarding religious sincerity (#9) will be

disregarded.

8. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

9. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

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 amended complaint must be

submitted on the form provided with this order, must bear the case number assigned to this

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 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

action, and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff’s failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order, or to seek an extension of time to do so, will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

10. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff, with his copy of this

order, a copy of the form complaint to be used by a prisoner seeking relief under the Civil Rights

Act; the Clerk shall remove the in forma pauperis application from the form packet, as plaintiff

has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and no further application is needed.

DATED: January 29, 2007.

DAD:13

nels1289.14+31

Case 2:06-cv-01289-LKK-KJN Document 10 Filed 01/31/07 Page 9 of 9