Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05464/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05464-0/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

STACEY SHARIHORNE,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 5464 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

M. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the July 7, 2003, first amended complaint. Plaintiff,

an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at CCI Tehachapi, brings

this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of

Corrections at CCI Tehachapi. Plaintiff names as defendants the following individuals:

Correctional Officer M. Adams; C/O L. Prieto; Sergeant Covey.

The allegations in this action stem from disciplinary charges leveled against

plaintiff. On January 4, 2002, C/O Adams was working in the observation booth in the Security

Housing Unit. Adams observed plaintiff engage in inappropriate behavior at the outdoor urinal. 

Adams initiated disciplinary charges against plaintiff for indecent exposure, and for threatening

to engage in sexual conduct with Adams’s family. Plaintiff’s comments were also directed at

C/O Prieto. At the disciplinary hearing, the charge of indecent exposure could not be

Case 1:03-cv-05464-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 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

2

substantiated. Plaintiff was found guilty of disrespecting staff. Plaintiff filed an appeal. The

rules violation was removed from plaintiff’s file, and plaintiff had 45 days of lost credit restored. 

Plaintiff did, however, suffer a ten day loss of yard time.

Plaintiff contends that he was falsely accused, and that he was placed in danger

by virtue of being falsely accused of threatening Adams’s family. Specifically, plaintiff alleges

that being labeled a sex offender placed him in danger.

As to the claim regarding plaintiff’s disciplinary hearing, in Edwards v. Balisok,

520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United States Supreme Court applied the doctrine articulated in

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), to prison disciplinary hearings. In Heck, the

Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages for unconstitutional conviction or

imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the prisoner can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. In

applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court held that a claim challenging the

procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a claim seeks money damages and

no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature of the inmate’s allegations are

such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the result of the prison disciplinary

hearing. 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if successful, would invalidate the duration

of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a habeas corpus petition and not under §

1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

Here, plaintiff alleges that his conviction was obtained based on false allegations. 

Such a claim necessarily implies the the invalidity of plaintiff’s conviction. Plaintiff has not

alleged that this conviction was reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated. Though plaintiff

contends that the more serious offense was unsubstantiated, he does not allege any facts

suggesting that the Hearing Officer found the evidence to be false. There are no allegations

Case 1:03-cv-05464-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 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

1

In Wolff v. McDonell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the court set forth the elements of due process

to which a prisoner is entitled in disciplinary hearings as follows: 1) Written notice of the charges;

2) At least 24 hours between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the time of the

hearing, so that prisoner may prepare his defense; 3) A written statement of fact findings; 4) The

right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence where such is not unduly hazardous to

institutional safety or correctional goals; and 5) Legal assistance if the accused is illiterate or the

issues are complex. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 556.

3

that indicate a due process violation.1

As to plaintiff’s claim regarding sex offender status, there are no allegations that

plaintiff has been classified as such, or that plaintiff was found guilty of any offense that would

classify him as such. Being charged with indecent exposure, of itself, fails to state a claim for

failing to protect plaintiff or deliberate indifference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834

(1994). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

Case 1:03-cv-05464-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 05/10/05 Page 3 of 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

4

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint"; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05464-OWW -WMW Document 14 Filed 05/10/05 Page 4 of 4