Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02761/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02761-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD WHATLEY,

CDCR #AG-2464,

Plaintiff,

vs.

G. VALDOVINOS, Correctional Officer; 

D. PARAMO, Warden; ROMERO,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT 

VALDOVINOS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8; 12(b)(6) & 41(b)

[ECF No. 34]

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff initially brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that his 

constitutional rights were violated when he was housed at the Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in May of 2018. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On March 1, 

2019, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”), 

dismissed Defendant Paramo and directed the United States Marshal Service (“USMS”) 

to effect service of Plaintiff’s Complaint upon Defendant Valdovinos. ECF No. 7. 

On June 10, 2019, Defendant Valdovinos filed a Motion to Dismiss Portions of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 12. In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend 

Complaint which was granted by the Court. ECF Nos. 21, 25. On November 8, 2019, 

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). ECF No. 32. In his FAC, Plaintiff 

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 11
2

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

added additional claims and one additional defendant. Id. at 1. Defendant Valdovinos

filed a new Motion seeking to dismiss all the claims in Plaintiff’s FAC pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(6) and 41(b). Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 34. 

Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to which Defendant filed a Reply. 

ECF Nos. 36, 37. 

While the Motion was initially calendared before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. 

Skomal, the Court has determined that this Motion is suitable for disposition upon the 

papers without oral argument and that no Report and Recommendation from Magistrate 

Judge Skomal is necessary. 

For the reasons set forth more fully below Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED in 

part and DENIED in part.

II. Operative Pleading

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s 

October 21, 2109 Order which granted Plaintiff leave to file an FAC. See ECF No. 25. 

In this Order, Plaintiff was instructed that his amended complaint “must be complete in 

itself without reference to his original pleading” and any “[d]efendants not named and 

any claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be considered waived.” Id. at 2 

citing S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original.”. 

However, Plaintiff’s FAC actually added new claims and a defendant which was not 

permitted by the Court’s previous Order, as well as simply attaching his original 

Complaint as an exhibit. Plaintiff’s FAC is therefore not “complete in itself.” However, 

because Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, the Court will consider the factual allegations in 

his FAC, including the allegations alleged in his original Complaint attached as an 

exhibit. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 11
3

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

III. Factual allegations1

On May 4, 2018, Plaintiff claims he engaged in a verbal dispute with Tower Officer 

Valdovinos after Valdovinos ordered him to “lock it up.” See FAC, ECF No. 32 at 23. 

Plaintiff objected, sat down, and “told Valdovinos to call Sgt. Mitchell.” Id. While Officer 

Trevino2“trashed [his] cell,” Plaintiff contends Valdovinos said, “If I was on the floor I 

would fuck you up,” threatened to “have someone fuck [Plaintiff] up,” and exclaimed “I 

don’t give a damn about getting sued.” Id. at 23, 25. Plaintiff claims Valdovinos “then got 

on the mic and said yard and dayroom will be delayed thanks to [Plaintiff] yall [sic] can 

blame him.” Id. at 23.

Later that night at “pill call,” Plaintiff “went to Sgt. Mitchell and told him what 

Valdovinos said.” Id. Plaintiff contends Sgt. Mitchell3called Valdovinos and “by the time 

[he] got back to the building,” Valdovinos was “mad” that Plaintiff “told the Sergeant on 

[him],” called him a “soft weak bitch,” and “got on the mic [sic] and said ‘I’m going to put 

you on blast you tell squad who got the dope and cell phones and if 206 cell get hit it was 

[Plaintiff] who told.’” Id.

Plaintiff claims Valdovinos “wrote a false report” (“RVR”) regarding the May 4, 

2018 incident, charging him with willfully delaying a peace officer in the performance of 

duty. Id. at 34. He further claims Valdovinos filed two additional “false” RVRs against him

both charging him with behavior which could lead to violence. Id. at 24.

A week after the May 4, 2018 incident, Plaintiff claims he was walking through the 

sally port, when he heard someone say, “You snitch” before he was hit in the jaw and neck. 

Id. at 23. Plaintiff contends he “blocked [the] punch,” but “can’t even say who the guy is” 

lest he be “called a snitch.” Id. at 24.

 

1 Page numbers for all documents filed in the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case File 

(“CM/ECF”) will refer to the pagination generated by CM/ECF as indicated on the top right-hand corner 

of each chronologically-numbered docket entry. 

2 Plaintiff does not name Trevino as a Defendant. 

3 Sgt. Mitchell is not named as a Defendant.

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 11
4

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

Plaintiff claims Valdovinos and Romero “work together” on “B-yard” at RJD. Id.

at 3. Plaintiff alleges Romero “open[ed] Plaintiff’s legal mail from this Court” and “yelled 

up” to Valdovinos “Hey Valdovinos, Whatley is suing you, he [is] trying to take your boat.” 

Id. 

On February 10, 2019, Plaintiff claims Valdovinos “told Lt. Rodriguez Plaintiff 

threaten to kill [Valdovinos].” Id. at 5. Valdovinos “wrote in his report that Plaintiff 

approached the sally port and while standing at the threshold,” Plaintiff turned his body 

towards Valdovinos, pointed his finger and said “stop following me, I’m going to kill you” 

while making a “horizontal slicing motion” to his throat. Id. Plaintiff was placed in the 

“hole” from February 10, 2019 to April 4, 2019. Id. 

IV. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss per Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)

A. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a defendant “may move to dismiss the 

action or claim” against them “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these 

rules or a court order.” A dismissal under this rule also “operates as an adjudication on the 

merits” unless the “dismissal order says otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Dismissal under 

Rule 41(b) “is so harsh a penalty it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme 

circumstances.” Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 525 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dahl v. City 

of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 366 (9th Cir. 1996)).

B. Application to Plaintiff’s FAC

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s entire action pursuant to Rule 41(b) on the 

grounds that Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to “comply with this Court’s Orders and the 

Local Rules.” Def.’s Mot. at 5-6. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s FAC is not “complete 

in itself without reference to his original pleading.” Id. at 5. As noted above, Plaintiff’s 

FAC is disjointed and adds a new defendant for which he did not seek leave of court to 

add. Moreover, it is not complete in itself and he instead merely attaches his original 

Complaint as an exhibit. Plaintiff’s FAC is not in compliance with the instructions 

previously provided by the Court.

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 11
5

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

In response, Plaintiff argues in his Opposition that he has not “vacated his original 

Complaint” and he is “only adding retaliation and another false report on G. Valdovinos.” 

Pl.’s Opp’n at 1. On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to file an 

amended complaint. See ECF No. 21. On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff’s request was 

granted and he was specifically informed that his “amended complaint must be complete 

in itself without reference to his original pleading.” Oct. 21, 2019 Order, ECF No. 25 at 2 

(emphasis added). 

However, while it is clear that Plaintiff has had difficulty complying with the 

Court’s Order, for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds dismissal of Plaintiff’s 

FAC appropriate on the grounds he failed to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and he has

failed to state some claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and will not dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 41(b) at this time. Plaintiff is cautioned that while the Court will permit 

Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading, if he continues to fail to comply with the 

Court’s Orders, including adding new claims or defendants without first seeking leave of 

Court, the Court may dismiss the entire action pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

V. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss per Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(b)

A. Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to 

dismiss on the grounds that a complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted.” A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the 

legal sufficiency of a claim.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001); Bryan 

v. City of Carlsbad, 207 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1114 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2018).

Because Rule 12(b)(6) focuses on the “sufficiency” of a claim rather than the 

claim’s substantive merits, “a court may [ordinarily] look only at the face of the 

complaint to decide a motion to dismiss,” Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 

F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 11
6

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 

544, 570 (2007)); Villa v. Maricopa Cty., 865 F.3d 1224, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2017). A 

claim is facially plausible “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. Plausibility requires pleading facts, as opposed to conclusory 

allegations or the “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 555, which rise above the mere conceivability or possibility of unlawful 

conduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959-60 (9th Cir. 

2013). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While a pleading “does 

not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” Rule 8 nevertheless “demands more than an 

unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

B. Rule 8

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s entire action on the ground that Plaintiff’s 

FAC fails to comply with Rule 8. See Def.’s Mot. at 6-7. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure provides that in order to state a claim for relief in a pleading it must 

contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” and “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) & (2). 

Here, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s FAC does not comply with Rule 8. Plaintiff’ 

FAC submits a few factual allegations against Valdovinos but mostly contains disjointed

statements and legal argument. He further asks that the Court “conduct a meaningful 

comparison” of his FAC and his original Complaint. As the Court has repeatedly 

informed Plaintiff, his operative pleading must be complete in itself. See McHenry v. 

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 1996) (upholding Rule 8(a) dismissal of 

complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely 

irrelevant”); Cafasso, United States ex rel. v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc., 637 

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 11
7

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing cases upholding Rule 8 dismissals where 

pleadings were “verbose,” “confusing,” “distracting, ambiguous, and unintelligible,” 

“highly repetitious,” and comprised of “incomprehensible rambling,” while noting that 

“[o]ur district courts are busy enough without having to penetrate a tome approaching the 

magnitude of War and Peace to discern a plaintiff’s claims and allegations.”).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s entire 

FAC for failing to comply with Rule 8.

C. Verbal Harassment claims

Plaintiff claims that he has added an “harassment” claim against Valdovinos. Pl.’s 

Mot. at 2. Defendant moves to dismiss this claim against him on the ground that this claim 

fails to state a claim. Def.’s Mot. at 8-9. 

An inmate “being subjected to abusive language ... [v]erbal harassment or abuse ... 

is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Freeman v. 

Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 

139 (9th Cir. 1987) (quotations omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by Shakur v. 

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2008)); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th 

Cir. 1996), amended on denial of rehr’g, 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding verbal 

harassment, standing alone, does not violate the Eighth Amendment); Austin v. Terhune, 

367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (Eighth Amendment protections “do not necessarily 

extend to mere verbal sexual harassment.”); Minifield v. Butikofer, 298 F. Supp. 2d 900, 

903-04 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Such conduct, while unprofessional, and impertinent, does 

constitute the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” required to sustain an Eighth 

Amendment violation. See, e.g., Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 256 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(affirming summary adjudication in favor of the prison officials where “the only arguably 

sexually harassing conduct... was verbal”).

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s verbal 

harassment claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) with prejudice and without leave to 

amend.

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 11
8

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

D. Rules Violation Report False Report claims

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims that Valdovinos violated his 

constitutional rights when Valdovinos allegedly filed a false rules violation report 

(“RVR”) against him in May and November 2018. Def.’s Mot. at 8. Plaintiff also 

alleges in his FAC that Valdovinos wrote “lies” his report following an incident on 

February 10, 2019 and as a result Plaintiff was held in the “hole” from February 10, 2019 

to April 4, 2019. FAC at 6. 

“The issuance of a false RVR, alone, does not state a claim under section 1983.” 

Murschel v. Paramo, 2018 WL 539159, at *5 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (citing Dawson v. Beard, 

2016 WL 1137029, at *5-6 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). Instead, claims of arbitrary action by 

prison officials must grounded in “‘the procedural due process requirements as set forth 

in Wolff v. McDonnell[, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)].’” Murschel, 2018 WL 539159, at *5 

(citing Ellis v. Foulk, 2014 WL 4676530, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Hanrahan v. 

Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1140 (7th Cir. 1984))). “[T]here is no due process right to be free 

from false disciplinary charges,” Solomon v. Meyer, 2014 WL 294576, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 

2014), because “[t]he Constitution demands due process, not error-free decision-making.” 

Chavira v. Rankin, 2012 WL 5914913, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2012); see also Johnson v. 

Felker, 2013 WL 6243280, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (“Prisoners have no constitutionally 

guaranteed right to be free from false accusations of misconduct, so the mere falsification 

of a [rules violation] report does not give rise to a claim under section 1983.”) (citing 

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) and Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 

949, 951-53 (2d Cir. 1986)).

A prisoner is entitled to certain due process protections when he is charged with a 

disciplinary violation. Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-571. “Such protections include the rights to call witnesses, to 

present documentary evidence and to have a written statement by the fact-finder as to the 

evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken.” Id.; see also 

Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566 (explaining that an inmate must be afforded an opportunity “to call 

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 11
9

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

witnesses and present documentary evidence in his or her defense when permitting him to 

do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.”). 

Plaintiff’s FAC is devoid of any factual allegations to support a Fourteenth Amendment 

due process claim.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment due process claims arising from the allegations of filing of false reports.

E. Injunctive relief claims

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief as moot in light 

of the fact that Plaintiff is no longer housed at RJD. Although Plaintiff did not file a notice 

of change of address, he is currently housed at the California Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility (“CSATF “) located in Corcoran, California.4

An inmate’s release or transfer from one institution to another while his claims are 

pending generally moots any claims for equitable relief which relate to the transferring 

prison’s policies unless the suit has been certified as a class action. Preiser v. Newkirk, 

422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368 (9th Cir. 1995).

Thus, because Plaintiff is currently housed at CSATF, the incidents giving rise to 

his claims occurred at RJD, and disputes as to the rights or obligations of the parties with 

respect to activities that occurred at RJD are not alleged to have been continued at 

CSATF, Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief is GRANTED.

F. Official Capacity claims

Finally, Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s FAC to the extent he seeks money 

damages against him based on actions taken in his “official” capacity. See Def.’s Mot. at 

9-10. While the Eleventh Amendment bars a prisoner’s section 1983 claims against state 

actors sued in their official capacities, Will v. Michigan, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989), it does 

 

4

See https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov (website last visited February 7, 2020.)

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 11
10

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

not bar damage actions against state officials sued in their personal or individual 

capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 31 (1991); Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 472-

73 (9th Cir. 1992). When a state actor is alleged to have violated both federal and state 

law and is sued for damages under section 1983 in his individual or personal capacity, 

there is no Eleventh Amendment bar, even if state law provides for indemnification. 

Ashker v. California Dep’t of Corrections, 112 F.3d 392, 395 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a plaintiff can establish personal liability 

in a section 1983 action simply by showing that each official acted under color of state 

law in deprivation of a federal right. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25. Thus, the Court GRANTS

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds only to the extent that 

Plaintiff seeks damages against him in his official capacity.

G. Leave to Amend

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

However, if Plaintiff does not comply with the Court’s Orders, his amended pleading

may be subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The amended pleading must 

be “complete in itself without reference to his original pleading” and any “[d]efendants 

not named and any claims not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be considered 

waived.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc.,, 896 F.2d at 1546.

While the Court will permit Plaintiff to file an amended pleading, he may not reallege his verbal harassment claims as the Court finds that amendment of these claims is 

futile. See Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood, 759, F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(“‘Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of ... leave to amend.’”) 

(quoting Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995))

In addition, Plaintiff may not attach his original Complaint or his FAC as an 

exhibit to his amended pleading. Plaintiff must provide one pleading that contains factual 

allegations against specific defendants. Plaintiff may add documents as exhibits that he 

believes supports his constitutional claims. However, Plaintiff may not add any new 

claims or defendants not previously raised in either his original Complaint or his FAC.

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

11
11

3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS

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

VI. Conclusion and Order

For all the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) GRANTS Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8;

2) DENIES Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b);

3) GRANTS Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s verbal 

harassment claims without leave to amend;

4) GRANTS Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment false report claims;

5) GRANTS Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims 

against him in his official capacity;

6) GRANTS Defendant Valdovino’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s injunctive 

relief claims;

7) GRANTS Plaintiff forty five (45) days leave from the date of this Order in 

which to file a Second Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading 

noted. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint must be complete by itself without reference to his 

original pleading. 

8) The Clerk of Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a court approved civil rights 

complaint for his use in amending.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-DEB Document 38 Filed 02/11/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

11