Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03107/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03107-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JIMMIE E. STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03107-LB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

[Re: ECF Nos. 19, 20, 21 ]

INTRODUCTION

Jimmie Stephen, currently an inmate at the California Medical Facility-Vacaville (CMFVacaville), filed this pro se prisoner‟s civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain 

about conditions at San Quentin State Prison, where he formerly was housed. He consented to 

proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)1This action is now before the court for 

review of the third amended complaint. This order finds that the third amended complaint fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted against the first group of defendants, finds that a 

second group of defendants is improperly joined, and dismisses the action. This order also denies 

Mr. Stephen‟s motion for appointment of counsel.

 

1 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 7
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

STATEMENT

On February 9, 2016, the court reviewed Mr. Stephen‟s amended complaint and issued an 

order of dismissal with leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) That order noted that the amended 

complaint was garbled but that Mr. Stephen appeared to be trying to allege a claim against 

Lieutenant Williams and others for retaliating against Mr. Stephen, with the retaliation apparently 

being connected to disciplinary matters. The order explained the problems in the amended 

complaint, and gave specific directions as to what Mr. Stephen needed to do to cure those 

deficiencies in the second amended complaint he was directed to file. (Id. at 3-4.) The court gave 

him guidance on pleading a retaliation claim, the need to link individual defendants to his claim, 

and the need to provide nonconclusory allegations of a conspiracy if he wished to pursue a claim 

on a conspiracy theory. (Id.) The court set a deadline that would allow Mr. Stephen more than a 

month to prepare his second amended complaint.

Mr. Stephen filed a second amended complaint within just a few days of receiving the order of 

dismissal with leave to amend. His second amended complaint alleged that Lieutenant Williams 

“willfully retaliated” against him. The court reviewed the second amended complaint and found 

that Mr. Stephen failed to follow most of the directions in the order of dismissal with leave to 

amend and had not stated a claim for retaliation. Specifically, Mr. Stephen had not adequately 

identified the First Amendment activities that allegedly prompted the retaliatory acts; had not 

alleged any facts plausibly suggesting that the disciplinary actions were because of Mr. Stephen‟s 

First Amendment activities; and had not adequately identified the adverse actions taken by 

Lieutenant Williams. (ECF No. 18 at 3-4.) The court granted Mr. Stephen “one final chance to try 

to plead a claim for retaliation” and permitted him to file a third amended complaint. (Id. at 4.) 

Mr. Stephen then filed a third amended complaint. His third amended complaint included eight 

defendants and attempted to allege a retaliation claim and claims about parole proceedings. Like 

the earlier pleadings, the third amended complaint was rather garbled but offered a retaliation 

theory. Once again, Mr. Stephen alleged that Lieutenant Williams and persons acting at his behest 

did unfavorable things in connection with five disciplinary write-ups (on August 26, 2012, 

October 9, 2013, April 9, 2014, November 6, 2014, and December 21, 2014) that Mr. Stephen 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 7
3

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

thought were retaliatory because they were adverse.

2

The third amended complaint also alleged a new claim that psychologists Geco and Jennifer 

Shaffer violated Mr. Stephen‟s right to due process at a November 5, 2015 parole suitability 

hearing at CMF-Vacaville. (ECF No. 20 at 7.) The third amended complaint also includes cut-andpasted paragraphs about the “FAD” for the parole proceedings and a list of 20 things that might be 

problems at parole hearings or the BPH‟s methodology in general. (Id. at 8-11.) 

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

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

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the violation 

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 

(1988). 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate 

(2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted).

 

2 Mr. Stephen already has challenged some of these disciplinary decisions. In Stephen v. Chappell, 

Case No. 14-cv-4683 SI, the court dismissed a habeas petition challenging the disciplinary 

decision for the August 26, 2012 CDC-115 because the discipline imposed (i.e., a counseling 

memorandum) was too minor to implicate a federal right to due process or support habeas relief.

In Stephen v. Chappell, Case No. 14-cv-2876 SI, the court denied a habeas petition challenging the

sufficiency of the evidence to support a disciplinary decision following a hearing on October 21, 

2013 for an October 9, 2013 CDC-115. 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 3 of 7
4

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The third amended complaint has not cured the deficiencies that the court identified previously 

and fails to state a claim for retaliation. The court earlier explained that Mr. Stephen‟s “conclusory 

allegation that Lieutenant Williams took actions because of some unspecified „grievances‟ does 

not adequately identify the First Amendment activities that allegedly prompted the retaliation acts 

because Mr. Stephen fails to identify the grievances he had filed and when he filed them.” (ECF 

No. 18 at 3.) Mr. Stephen mentions rule-violation reports (two written by Lieutenant Williams and 

three written by other correctional personnel) and inmate appeals, apparently believing that all 

adverse events are retaliatory, but that is not true as a matter of logic. Also, that approach does not 

adequately cover all the elements of a § 1983 claim for retaliation. The third amended complaint 

fails to adequately identify the First Amendment activities that allegedly prompted the retaliatory 

acts against him and fails to allege facts plausibly suggesting that the disciplinary actions were

because of his First Amendment activities. The retaliation claim is dismissed. Further leave to 

amend will not be granted because it would be futile. The court has twice explained the elements 

of a retaliation claim and pointed out the specific deficiencies in Mr. Stephen‟s claim, but he was 

unable to cure those deficiencies.

The third amended complaint also includes allegations about parole proceedings that took 

place in November 2015 at CMF-Vacaville. These allegations involve a separate group of

defendants, i.e., psychologist Shaffer, psychologist Geco, and CMF-Vacaville warden Fox. This 

portion of the third amended complaint includes several copied pages from other documents, many 

of which do not make sense as a pleading. (See, e.g., ECF No. 20 at 10 (checklist of potential 

problems in parole proceedings).) 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) all persons may be joined in one action as 

defendants if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative 

with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or 

occurrences” and if “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”

The claims against these three defendants regarding the parole proceedings are not “with respect to 

or arising out of the same . . . series of transactions or occurrences” as the retaliation claim, as 

required for permissive joinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). These three defendants are not properly 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 4 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

joined with the defendants for the retaliation claim that allegedly arose at San Quentin State 

Prison. The improper joinder problem can be solved by dismissing or severing the improperly 

joined parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. 

The court must conduct a prejudice analysis, including potential statute of limitations 

problems, before selecting dismissal over severance. See Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973, 

975 (9th Cir. 2015). The statute of limitations for a § 1983 claim filed in California is two years. 

See Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2004); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. 

Incarceration of the plaintiff is a disability that may toll the statute for a maximum of two years for 

a plaintiff who is in prison “for a term less than for life.” See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 352.1, 357. 

A continuously incarcerated plaintiff thus has four years to bring his action. None of Mr. 

Stephen‟s claims would be time-barred by dismissal of the defendants who were joined 

improperly because those claims appear to be based on events occurring at or around the 

November 2015 parole proceedings. Mr. Stephen appears to be years away from the expiration of 

the statute of limitations deadline for him to file a new § 1983 action asserting those claims. 

Dismissal of the improperly joined defendants is preferable because further amendment of the 

claims against those defendants will be necessary, and it is preferable that Mr. Stephen start over 

with a new complaint (rather than a fourth amended complaint) limited to his claims against those 

defendants and to file it in the proper venue. The Eastern District of California, rather than the 

Northern District of California, is the proper venue for a complaint alleging violations of Mr. 

Stephen‟s rights during parole proceedings at CMF-Vacaville, because that facility is located in 

Solano County and therefore within the Eastern District. This action has not progressed beyond 

the pleading stage, so there is no effort that will have been wasted in this case. For these reasons, 

the court finds that there would be no prejudice to Mr. Stephen due to the dismissal of the 

improperly-joined defendants and therefore selects dismissal over severance. Accordingly, the 

court will dismiss psychologist Jennifer Shaffer, psychologist Geco, and CMF-Vacaville warden 

R. W. Fox as improperly joined. The dismissal of these three defendants is without prejudice to

Mr. Stephen filing a new action in the proper venue asserting claims against the dismissed parties. 

(This is not to say that the claims against the dismissed parties are meritorious, but simply that 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 5 of 7
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

those claims must be pursued in a separate action, if at all.)

Mr. Stephen filed a second motion for appointment of counsel to represent him in this action.

A district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). Here, exceptional circumstances 

requiring the appointment of counsel are not evident. The pleading problems in Mr. Stephen‟s

retaliation claim are his inability or unwillingness to allege necessary facts, notwithstanding 

instructions from the court on the need to allege such facts. This is not an instance where a 

prisoner-plaintiff appears to have a meritorious claim that is being turned away due to some 

technical legal jargon missing from the pleading. Mr. Stephen's motion for appointment of counsel 

therefore is DENIED. (ECF No. 19.)

Mr. Stephen‟s request for the court to order the Marshal to serve process is DENIED. (ECF 

No. 21.) Because the court is dismissing this action, no defendant will be served with process. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this action is dismissed. The third amended complaint is dismissed 

without leave to amend because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against 

the defendants at San Quentin State Prison. The claims based on the parole proceedings at CMFVacaville are dismissed without prejudice to Mr. Stephen‟s pursuing those claims in a new action

in the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016 ___________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 6 of 7
7

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE E. STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-03107-LB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on September 23, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jimmie E. Stephen ID: C56483

Vacaville State Prison CMF J-187-L

PO Box 2500

Vacaville, CA 95696 

Dated: September 23, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 22 Filed 09/23/16 Page 7 of 7