Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00802/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00802-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY LEE,

Plaintiff, 1:05-CV-00802 ALA P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Bobby Lee is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), when the litigant is a prisoner, the court must screen

complaints brought against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. The Court must dismiss the complaint if the claims contained in it, even when read

broadly, are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(A)(b). A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this Court] must accept

[Plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts 

Case 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/19/07 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

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. 

In the first sixteen pages of Plaintiff’s written complaint, Plaintiff discusses the incidents

he believes resulted in constitutional violations. Complaint at 8-24. Plaintiff alleges that he was

unjustifiedly placed in the Segregated Housing Unit, that he wasn’t fed on multiple occasions,

that he wasn’t given his prescription medication and that he was wrongfully accused of

assaulting a staff member. Id. However, Plaintiff does not identify which of the named

defendants participated in any of the alleged incidents. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege that

the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law. Hydrick,

466 F.3d at 689.

Later, on page 17, Plaintiff states that Defendant Cordero mumbled racial slurs which

“clearly proves racial profiling” but provides not further details or information. Id. at 24. 

Plaintiff then proceeds to list the defendants and alleges that they “conspired to and did violate

Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights” by “signing documents which contained no evidence

and/or obtained false/fabricated charges.” Id. at 24-26. However, Plaintiff cites no legal

authority for his contention. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to allege that the conduct deprived

Plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Hydrick, 466 F.3d at 689. 

To proceed, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint. Any amended complaint must

show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that Plaintiff’s action is brought in the right

place, that Plaintiff is entitled to relief if Plaintiff’s allegations are true, and 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

Case 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/19/07 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

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). If Plaintiff contends he was the

victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their agreement to deprive

him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

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

claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from Plaintiff’s 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, 1180 (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).

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give a plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

Case 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/19/07 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 “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand Plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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. 

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.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he 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. Prison rules require Plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and Plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See 15 Cal.

Admin. Code § 3005.

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). 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 action.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed with leave to

amend within thirty-five (35) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff shall file an original and

Case 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/19/07 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

one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to this case

and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

order dismissing this action for failure to state a claim. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint

stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States

Marshal. 

/////

Dated: November 19, 2007

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:05-cv-00802-LJO-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/19/07 Page 5 of 5