Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00883/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00883-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff does not identify the specific institutions where said defendants are

employed.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR J. BRAVO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. HEWCHUCK, et al.,

Defendants ___________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0883 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND

(Docket Nos. 19, 22 & 23)

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Mens Colony and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 against eight individuals employed in California prisons.1

 On May 26, 2006, the

Court ordered plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a completed application to proceed

in forma pauperis (“IFP”). On June 26, 2006, plaintiff filed an IFP application, which has

been granted in a separate order filed concurrently herewith. The Court addresses herein

plaintiff’s multiple motions for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), and reviews the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A. Motions for TRO

On June 21, 2006, July 5, 2006, and July 7, 2006, plaintiff filed motions for a TRO. 

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In said motions, plaintiff claims to have been “illegally transferred” to the California Men’s

Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, and requests a transfer to the California Training

Facility in Soledad, California. To obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, “a strong

likelihood of success on the merits.” See Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. Nat’l

Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1980). There is no likelihood of success on

the merits of plaintiff’s claim of an illegal transfer, however, because a prisoner’s liberty

interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that the state may generally confine

or transfer him to any of its institutions, indeed, even to a prison in another state, without

offending the Constitution. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976) (finding intrastate prison transfer does not

implicate Due Process Clause)); see also Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983)

(holding prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in particular institution, and

that interstate prison transfer does not implicate Due Process Clause). Consequently,

plaintiff’s motions for a TRO are DENIED.

B. Review Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

1. Standard of Review

Section 1915A requires a federal court to engage in a preliminary screening of cases

in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Federal courts must dismiss a case filed in

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the court, at any time, determines the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1)

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the reasons discussed above, the transfer of plaintiff to another institution does

not in and of itself implicate plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

3

2. Plaintiff’s Claims

In the instant complaint, plaintiff alleges defendants ordered “five or six (heavily)

armed security officers to violently and forcifully [sic] restrain the plaintiff, and to drag him

bodily (under handcuff and shackle restraints) to a van where he was transported to another

state facility [ ] where he was further tortured and incurred irreparable physical and

emotional injuries.” Conceivably, these allegations, when liberally construed, could give rise

to a cognizable claim for the violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment.2

 See generally See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832

(1994) (providing deliberate indifference to inmate’s personal safety violates Eighth

Amendment); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992) (holding use of excessive force

violates Eighth Amendment). 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim with respect to the eight individual

defendants named in the complaint, however. Liability may be imposed on an individual

defendant under § 1983 only if the plaintiff can show the defendant proximately caused the

deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

1988). In that regard, the plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual

defendant’s” deprivation of the plaintiff’s protected rights. Id.; see also Chuman v. Wright,

76 F.3d 292, 294 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding defendant cannot be held liable based on

membership in group; requiring showing of defendant’s individual participation in unlawful

conduct). Here, all of plaintiff’s allegations are against the “defendants” collectively;

plaintiff fails to allege what any individual defendant actually did. In order to state a

cognizable claim against any of the defendants herein, plaintiff must allege how each such

defendant personally was involved in the events plaintiff describes and, equally important,

what each such defendant personally did, or failed to do, that caused plaintiff’s alleged

injuries. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency, if he

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The Court notes that on February 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a document titled “First

Amendment of Civil No. C 06-0883.” In that document, plaintiff generally repeats the

allegations in the complaint, although he adds two additional individual defendants. To

whatever extent plaintiff intends the document to amend his complaint, it fails to cure the

above-noted deficiencies because it likewise fails to set forth the actions of each individual

defendant in allegedly violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Further, plaintiff may not

file “amendments” to his complaint; rather, he must file an Amended Complaint superseding

his original complaint, as ordered herein. 

4

can do so in good faith.3 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within

thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT correcting the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff shall include in the

caption both the case number of this action (No. C 06-0883 MMC (PR)), and the phrase

“AMENDED COMPLAINT.”

2. The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must include in the

amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to present. If plaintiff fails to

timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, this case will be

dismissed.

3. It is plaintiffs’responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

4. Plaintiff’s motions for a TRO are DENIED.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 19, 22, and 23.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 35 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4