Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02597/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02597-5/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

JASON MORRISON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2597 WBS EFB P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 24, 2007, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable

claims against defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas, but not against

defendants Black and Blanas. That order gave plaintiff leave to amend to state claims against

defendants Black and Blanas. 

On January 22, 2008, plaintiff submitted documents for service for defendants McCoy,

Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas, together with a letter indicating that he would like to

amend his complaint. Plaintiff is referred to the October 24, 2007 order. As stated in that order,

plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and

Douglas and pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any

defendant and attempt again to state a cognizable claim against defendants Blanas and Black.

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/29/08 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

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

defendants Blanas and Black, he has 30 days so to do. However, he is not obligated to amend

his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter,

Treat, and Douglas, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days

he must inform the court that he has elected to proceed on the previously returned materials for

service of process. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to

dismissal of all claims against defendants Blanas and Black 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

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

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/29/08 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

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 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 the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by 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).

Moreover, 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), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). 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).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/29/08 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

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.

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 first 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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 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

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/29/08 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

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 . 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt

to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Failure to do so will result in a

recommendation that those defendants be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff is not obliged to

amend his complaint and, as noted, may proceed as to the defendants noted in paragraph 2,

below, only.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has

already submitted documents for service on these defendants. Within 20 days of service of this

order plaintiff must inform the court whether he intends to proceed against those defendants with

those service documents, or he may file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint together

with a proposed amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed against defendants McCoy,

Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas, the court will transmit the service documents already

submitted to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

Defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas 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 Blanas and Black without prejudice.

Dated: May 29, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 20 Filed 05/29/08 Page 5 of 5