Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01060/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01060-5/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTWONE LOVEST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1060-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened plaintiff’s original complaint and found that he had stated a 

cognizable retaliation claim against defendant LaRosa, but dismissed the remaining claims with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which is before the court for screening 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. ECF No. 19.1

 

I. Screening 

A. Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

1

 Plaintiff’s amended complaint appears twice on the docket for reasons that are unclear. 

ECF Nos. 18, 19. The documents are identical. 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 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 

2 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-57. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

B. Analysis 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is nearly identical to his original. He again states a 

cognizable retaliation claim against defendant LaRosa. And he again asserts that LaRosa 

behaved in a way toward him that was discriminatory on the basis of plaintiff’s Asian ethnicity. 

Plaintiff asserts that this conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000. Presumably, plaintiff means 42 

U.S.C. § 2000a, but the court could locate no authority that state prisons constitute places of 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 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 

3 

public accommodation under that statute. See Nance v. Ryan, No. CV 15-0923-PHX-SMM 

(DKD), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97568, at *9 (D. Ariz. July 27, 2015). 

To the extent that plaintiff wishes to assert a claim against LaRosa for discrimination in 

violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, plaintiff must allege facts showing 

that LaRosa acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon 

membership in a protected class, and that plaintiff was treated differently from persons similarly 

situated. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff may satisfy this 

standard by alleging (1) that he was treated differently from others similarly situated; (2) that this 

unequal treatment was based on an impermissible classification; (3) that LaRosa acted with 

discriminatory intent in applying this classification; and (4) that he suffered injury as a result of 

the discriminatory classification. Personnel Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). 

Plaintiffs allegations, if taken as true, show that LaRosa’s discipline of plaintiff was 

motivated by plaintiff’s expressed intention to grieve LaRosa’s discriminatory statement toward 

him. Further, it can be inferred from the allegations that LaRosa was also motivated by an intent 

to discriminate against plaintiff, as the statement that plaintiff should go back where he came 

from is indicative of discriminatory animus. Liberally construing the complaint, and for the 

purposes of § 1915A screening only, the court finds that plaintiff has stated a potentially 

cognizable equal protection claim against LaRosa. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Ralph Diaz and Joe Lizarraga. The complaint contains no 

factual allegations against these defendants, so they must be dismissed. 

In its initial screening order, the court found that plaintiff had stated insufficient facts on 

which to premise a claim against defendants Knight, Walizer, and Charon. Plaintiff has not 

altered a single word of his claim against these defendants. Accordingly, it must be dismissed 

again for the reasons stated in the initial screening order. 

Plaintiff may proceed on his retaliation and equal protection claims against LaRosa only. 

Alternatively, the court will provide plaintiff one last opportunity to amend the complaint to 

attempt to state viable claims against the remaining defendants. 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 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 

4 

If plaintiff elects to file a second amended complaint, that pleading must identify as a 

defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving him 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). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

II. Order 

For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint states, for screening purposes, potentially cognizable 

retaliation and equal protection claims against defendant LaRosa. 

2. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against all defendants are dismissed with leave to amend 

within 30 days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend 

his complaint. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 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 

5 

3. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall return the notice below advising the court whether he 

elects to proceed with the cognizable claims or file a second amended complaint. If the 

former option is selected and returned, the court will enter an order directing service on 

defendants at that time. 

4. Failure to comply with any part of this this order may result in dismissal of this action. 

DATED: April 15, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 5 of 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 

6 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTWONE LOVEST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

RALPH DIAZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01060-MCE-EFB P 

 

NOTICE OF INTENT TO PROCEED OR 

AMEND 

In accordance with the court’s Screening Order, plaintiff hereby elects to: 

(1) ______ proceed only with his equal protection and retaliation claims against 

defendant LaRosa; 

 

OR 

 (2) ______ delay serving any defendant and file a second amended complaint. 

 _________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Dated: 

Case 2:19-cv-01060-TLN-JDP Document 20 Filed 04/15/20 Page 6 of 6