Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00794/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00794-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE B. MEYERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-00794-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Enrique B. Meyers (“plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. Plaintiff filed this action on June 22, 2006.

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 legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that 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)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 6
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

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether

the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of

the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”

Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l

Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff is a former inmate who was housed at the United States Penitentiary-Atwater when

he filed this action. The events at issue allegedly occurred at the Federal Correctional Institution

Sheridan in Sheridan, Oregon, and at USP-Atwater in Atwater California.

1. Improper Venue

The majority of plaintiff’s claims arise against staff at FCI Sheridan, and are not properly

brought in this court. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must omit his claims for relief against staff

at FCI Sheridan. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise

defective venue sua sponte); see also Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991)

///

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 6
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

(courts have broad discretion regarding severance). If plaintiff wishes to pursue those claims, he

may file suit in the United States District Court of Oregon. 

2. Claims Against Personnel at USP-Atwater

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Orosco, Silva, and Warden Smith arise from plaintiff’s

attempts to get a copy of his DHO report. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are required to ensure that

all his records are properly maintained. Plaintiff also alleges that defendants failed to respond to his

initial administrative requests for a copy of the report.

Plaintiff’s allegations do not give rise to any cognizable claims for relief under federal law

against defendants at USP-Atwater. In the subsections that follow, the court will provide plaintiff

with the legal standards applicable to the claims he is attempting to pursue. Plaintiff should carefully

review the standards and amend only those claims he believes in good faith are cognizable under

federal law.

a. Denial of Access to the Courts

Plaintiff alleges his right of access to the courts was violated. Inmates have a fundamental

constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 2177

(1996). The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Id.

at 354, 2181-82. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration or hindrance

of “a litigating opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a

meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536

U.S. 403, 412-15, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2185-87 (2002). To prevail on a claim, the plaintiff must show

that he suffered an actual injury by being shut out of court. Id. at 415, 2187; Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351,

2180.

b. Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff alleges a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. To constitute cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve “the

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain . . . .” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981).

“What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Clause depends upon the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). “The

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 6
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

objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is . . . contextual and responsive to

contemporary standards of decency.” Id. at 8 (quotations and citations omitted). “[E]xtreme

deprivations are required to make out a[n] [Eighth Amendment] conditions-of-confinement claim.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted). With respect to this type of claim, “[b]ecause routine discomfort is part

of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society, only those deprivations

denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis

of an Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide

prisoners with food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Id.; Toussaint

v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir.

1982). Where a prisoner alleges injuries stemming from unsafe conditions of confinement, prison

officials may be held liable only if they acted with “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of

serious harm.” Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). The deliberate indifference

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious . . . .” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know[] of and

disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety . . . .” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. 

c. Due Process

Plaintiff alleges his right to due process was violated. The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment protects prisoners from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Plaintiff has not alleged any

facts that would support a claim that he was deprived of a protected interest without procedural due

process.

With respect to the administrative remedy process, “[a prison] grievance procedure is a

procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow,

997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982));

see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of

appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641,

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 6
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

647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on prisoner); Mann

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Actions in reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal

cannot serve as the basis for liability in this civil rights action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

d. Conspiracy

Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to violate his rights. A complaint must “allege

[some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” Buckey v. County of

Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department,

839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must allege that defendants conspired or acted jointly

in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Sykes v. State of

California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974). In this instance, plaintiff has not stated a claim that

any underlying right was violated, and the complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a claim that

defendants conspired to violate his rights. 

e. Supervisory Liability

Defendant Smith is the Warden at USP-Atwater. Supervisory personnel cannot be held liable

in a Bivens action for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Terrell

v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir. 1991).

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint does not state any claims for relief against staff at USP-Atwater.

Plaintiff has two options. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint setting forth only his claims

against staff at USP-Atwater. In the alternative, if plaintiff does not wish to amend his claims

against staff at USP-Atwater and wishes to proceed only on his claims against staff at FCI Sheridan,

plaintiff may so notify the court and it will dismiss his claims against staff at USP-Atwater and then

transfer this action to the United State District Court for Oregon.

If plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint setting forth his claims against staff at USPAtwater, plaintiff must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained of resulted in

a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).

The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be

no liability unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 5 of 6
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

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

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

Plaintiff is cautioned that his amended complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the

pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may

ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what

the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a Bivens complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint that complies with the directives in this order; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty days, this action will be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00794-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 02/27/07 Page 6 of 6