Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02597/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02597-2/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 state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This

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

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial

partial payment of $28.80 is assessed pursuant to section 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff must make

monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust account.

See 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-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 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

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter,

Treat, and Douglas, regarding the alleged assault on August 28, 2005. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The complaint does not name any defendants who allegedly denied plaintiff access to the

law library from November 2005 to July 2006, or who participated in an alleged assault on

December 1, 2005, and therefore those causes of action fail to state a claim. 

For the following reasons, the complaint does not state any charging allegations against

defendants Blanas or Black. 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 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 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

3

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 to state a cognizable claim regarding the other violations alleged in his

complaint, including any against defendants Blanas and Black.

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

the other alleged violations and against defendants Blanas and Black, he has 30 days so to do. 

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 return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will

construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims regarding law library access and

the alleged December 1, 2005, assault, as well as any 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

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 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

4

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 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 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.

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 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

5

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

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

McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action and make an initial

payment of $28.80. All payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to

the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Blanas and Black are dismissed with leave to amend. 

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

cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

////

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 5 of 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

6

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state cognizable claims against

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

order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading

filed November 20, 2006, five USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on

defendants McCoy, Kacalek, Painter, Treat, and Douglas. Within 20 days of service of this

order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed

summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and six copies of the November 20, 2006, complaint. 

The court will transmit them 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: October 24, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 6 of 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

7

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. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02597-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 10/24/07 Page 7 of 7