Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02267-2/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Ronnie O’Neal Brown,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S-03-2267 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

Edward S. Alameida, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff filed this civil rights action as a state prisoner

without counsel.

The action proceeds on the April 29, 2005, amended

complaint, in which plaintiff claims defendants violated his

constitutional right to due process in connection with parole

revocation proceedings. Because plaintiff then was confined

based on the challenged parole revocation, the court on May 11,

2005, ordered him to show cause why the action should not be

dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey. 

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 8
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

November 2, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of change of

address that indicates he no longer is confined.

I have reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and find it states a cognizable claim against

defendants Fraizer, Phillips and Licita. 

The complaint states no cognizable claim against defendant

Governor Schwartzenegger because he is entitled to Eleventh

Amendment immunity. Plaintiff’s claims against Schwartzenegger

are dismissed.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Fraizer,

Phillips and Licita and pursue his claims against only those

defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to

state a cognizable claim against defendant Schwartzenegger.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint, he

has 45 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint

and if he does it unavoidably will delay this litigation.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants

Fraizer, Phillips and Licita, against whom he has stated a

cognizable claim for relief, then within 15 days he must return

materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this

event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to

dismissal of all claims against defendant Schwartzenegger without

prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has

jurisdiction, the action is brought in the right place and

plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are 

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 8
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

true. It 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 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 

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 8
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

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 (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). It is sufficient, for example, for a prisoner

who claims the conditions of his imprisonment violate the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to

allege that an identified state actor used force against

plaintiff maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

(On the other hand, prison officers imposing discipline act in

haste, under pressure and without the luxury of a second chance;

therefore, no Eighth Amendment violation occurs where force is

applied to maintain or restore discipline but not maliciously and

sadistically.) 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and

understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, supra. 

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 

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 4 of 8
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

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. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an

omission or technical defect, the court will not dismiss it

without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an

opportunity to cure it. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir.

1986). Plaintiff’s pleading will be construed “liberally” to

determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if

plaintiff violates the federal rules, once explained, or the

court’s plain orders.

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 a second 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. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. The May 11, 2005, order to show cause is discharged.

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 5 of 8
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

6

2. Claims against defendant Schwartzenegger are dismissed

with leave to amend. Within 45 days of service of this order,

plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state cognizable

claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to

amend his complaint and if he does it inevitably will delay this

litigation.

3. The pleading states cognizable claims against defendants

Frazier, Phillips and Licita. With this order the Clerk of the

Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the

pleading filed April 29, 2005, three USM-285 forms and

instructions for service of process on defendants Frazier,

Phillips and Licita. Within 15 days of service of this order

plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285

forms, and four copies of the April 29, 2005, amended complaint. 

The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal

for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants

Frazier, Phillips and Licita will be required to respond to

plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe

plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

dismissing his defective claims against defendant Schwartzenegger

without prejudice.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Ronnie O’Neal Brown,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 03-2267 FCD PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Edward S. Alameida, Jr., et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in 

compliance with the court's order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:03-cv-02267-FCD-PAN Document 20 Filed 12/28/05 Page 8 of 8