Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01907/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01907-1/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

LEONARD A. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. LAMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1907 MCE CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). ECF Nos. 2, 6. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 9
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

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘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, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). In order to survive dismissal for failure 

to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 9
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

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).

III. Complaint

The complaint alleges that defendants Lamas, Mendoza, Trevino, Vivero, Hernandez, and 

Casillas violated plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 1.) 

Specifically, he alleges that defendant Lamas violated his rights to due process and equal 

protection when she denied him witnesses at a disciplinary hearing, found him guilty, and 

assessed a penalty that included the loss of good-time credits. (Id. at 6-7, 10-13, ¶¶ 13-17, 40-

48.) On appeal, the guilty finding was vacated and plaintiff was found not guilty on re-hearing. 

(Id. at 8-9, ¶¶ 28-29.) Approximately one week after filing an appeal of the disciplinary hearing, 

plaintiff was approached by defendant Mendoza who told him that he complained too much and 

that defendant Trevino wanted to speak with him. (Id. at 7, ¶¶ 18-20.) Once in Trevino’s office, 

and in the presence of Mendoza, Trevino asked plaintiff about the appeal and told him that he 

would be moved to a higher security level if he did not withdraw his appeal. (Id. at 7-8, ¶¶ 21, 

24.) After plaintiff refused to withdraw his appeal, he was immediately moved from minimum 

security to a higher security housing location, which resulted in losing his vocational job training 

and extended recreation and phone access. (Id. at 8, ¶¶ 25-27.) Several months later, plaintiff 

was seen by defendants Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas as part of his annual review by the Unit 

Classification Committee. (Id. at 9, ¶ 31.) During the hearing he requested that he be returned to 

his minimum-security housing and previous job assignment and that his custody placement score 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 9
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

be reduced based on his disciplinary-free periods. (Id., ¶¶ 32-33.) Defendants refused to adjust 

his score because of the previously overturned disciplinary violation and further refused to restore 

his job placement and programs. (Id. at 9-10, ¶¶ 34-36.) Plaintiff claims that the denials were in 

retaliation for appealing the disciplinary and that on appeal from the committee’s decision his 

placement score was correctly adjusted and he was advised there would be no further retaliation 

for using the inmate appeals process. (Id. at 10, ¶¶ 37-38.)

IV. Failure to State a Claim

A. Due Process

“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full 

panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (citation omitted). However, an inmate subject to disciplinary sanctions that 

include the loss of good-time credits must receive (1) twenty-four-hour advanced written notice 

of the charges against him, id. at 563-64; (2) “a written statement by the factfinders as to the 

evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action,” id. at 564-65 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted); (3) an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence where doing so “will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional 

goals,” id. at 566; (4) assistance at the hearing if he is illiterate or if the matter is complex, id. at 

570; and (5) a sufficiently impartial fact finder, id. at 570-71. A finding of guilt must also be 

“supported by some evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

Although plaintiff alleges that he lost good-time credits as a result of the disciplinary and 

that Lamas denied his request for witnesses, he also alleges that the guilty finding was reversed 

on appeal. There is no due process violation if “any procedural error was corrected through the 

administrative appeal process.” Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations 

omitted). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim for violation of his right to due 

process.

B. Equal Protection

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all 

similarly situated people equally. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 9
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

(1985) (citation omitted). “To state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a 

plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him 

based upon his membership in a protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)). Alternatively, a 

plaintiff may state an equal protection claim if he shows similarly situated individuals were 

intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate government 

purpose. Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (citations omitted).

Although plaintiff alleges that Lamas’ treatment during his disciplinary hearing violated 

his right to equal protection, he fails to establish that he was discriminated against because of his 

membership in a protected class or that he qualifies as a class of one. Instead, he makes only 

conclusory allegations that he was treated differently than similarly situated inmates. (ECF No. 1 

at 11, ¶¶ 41, 44.) This is insufficient to state a claim for relief.

V. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required

A viable First Amendment claim for retaliation must establish the following five 

elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote and 

citations omitted). Plaintiff need not prove that the alleged retaliatory action, in itself, violated a 

constitutional right. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (to prevail on a retaliation 

claim, plaintiff “need not establish an independent constitutional interest” was violated); Hines v. 

Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[P]risoners may still base retaliation claims on harms 

that would not raise due process concerns.”).

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Trevino retaliated against him for filing a grievance 

related to his disciplinary hearing and Mendoza’s comment is sufficient, at the screening stage, to 

show that he was complicit in the retaliation. Furthermore, although plaintiff’s classification 

committee hearing took place approximately five months after the appeal was filed, and it does 

not appear that Vivero, Hernandez, or Casillas made any comments that would demonstrate 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 9
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

retaliation, the response plaintiff received to his appeal of the committee’s decision, stating that 

he would not be subject to any further retaliation, is sufficient to support the inference that the 

committee’s decision was retaliatory in nature. Accordingly, defendants Trevino, Mendoza, 

Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas will be required to respond to the retaliation claims. 

VI. Leave to Amend

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not state 

cognizable claims against defendant Lamas for violation of plaintiff’s rights to due process or 

equal protection. However, it appears that plaintiff may be able to allege facts to remedy this and 

he will be given the opportunity to amend the complaint if he wants. 

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, 

Hernandez, and Casillas on his retaliation claims, or he may delay serving any defendant and 

amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the attached notice advising the court how 

he wishes to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he will be given thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his retaliation claims against 

defendants Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas without amending the complaint, 

the court will proceed to serve the complaint. A decision to go forward without amending the 

complaint will be considered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice of the claims against 

defendant Lamas.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

the original complaint 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.

VII. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 

entire filing fee immediately.

Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. Your retaliation claims against Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas state 

claims for relief and these defendants will be required to respond to the complaint. 

Your due process and equal protection claims against Lamas do not state claim for relief 

because the facts show that the due process violations were fixed by your re-hearing and you have 

not given facts showing that you were discriminated against because you are a member of a 

protected class or that you were treated differently than other inmates in a similar situation. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your retaliation 

claims against Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas and voluntarily dismiss the 

claims against Lamas or (2) try to amend the complaint. If you want to go forward without 

amending the complaint, you will be voluntarily dismissing without prejudice your claims against 

defendant Lamas. If you choose to amend your complaint, the amended complaint must include 

all of the claims you want to make, including the ones that have already been found to state a 

claim, because the court will not look at the claims or information in the original complaint. Any 

claims or information not in the amended complaint will not be considered. You must 

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 7 of 9
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

8

complete the attached notification showing what you want to do and return it to the court. Once 

the court receives the notice, it will issue an order telling you what you need to do next (i.e. file 

an amended complaint or wait for defendants to be served).

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Lamas do not state claims for which relief can be 

granted. 

4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his retaliation claims against 

defendants Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas as set forth in Section V above, or 

to amend the complaint.

5. Within fourteen days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file a first amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court 

will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend 

dismissal without prejudice of the claims against defendant Lamas.

Dated: April 9, 2020

13:edwa1907.14.option

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 8 of 9
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

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD A. EDWARDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. LAMAS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1907 MCE CKD P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his retaliation claims against defendants

Trevino, Mendoza, Vivero, Hernandez, and Casillas without amending the complaint. 

Plaintiff understands that by going forward without amending the complaint he is 

voluntarily dismissing without prejudice his claims against defendants Lamas pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint.

DATED:_______________________

Leonard A. Edwards

Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:19-cv-01907-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/09/20 Page 9 of 9