Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02744/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02744-0/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

JONATHAN HANKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2744 DFL EFB P

vs.

JEAN HALL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to

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

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his application makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s

income credited to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of

plaintiff shall forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the

amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02744-RRB-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 5
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

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-02744-RRB-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 5
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

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).

Plaintiff claims that defendants Jean Hall, J. Mayhew, J. Johnson, I. O’Brian, Ellen

Grant, Jimmy Walker and Scott Kernan violated plaintiff’s rights of substantive due process by

failing to reinstate his visiting privileges. Prison officials temporarily suspended plaintiff’s

privilege of visiting with three specific individuals while they investigated whether these

individuals had introduced controlled substances into the prison. He also claims that all

defendants denied this administrative appeal in retaliation for plaintiff filing the appeal in the

first place. To state a claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, a plaintiff must allege a defendant denied plaintiff a specific right protected by the

federal constitution without procedures required by the constitution to ensure fairness, or

deliberately abused his power without any reasonable justification in aid of any government

interest or objective and only to oppress in a way that shocks the conscience. Sandin v. Connor,

515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 31 (1986); Board of Regents of

State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972). Rights protected under the rubric of

substantive due process are those not otherwise constitutionally protected but which are deeply

rooted in this country’s history and tradition and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” such

that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if it were sacrificed. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521

U.S. 702, 721 (1997). To state a claim for retaliation, 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 the adverse action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of his rights

Case 2:06-cv-02744-RRB-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 5
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

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). Plaintiff’s

allegations fail to satisfy either standard.

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.

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02744-RRB-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. 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.” 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: May 14, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02744-RRB-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/15/07 Page 5 of 5