Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01844/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01844-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WATTS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 05-1844 MCE EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On June 2, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. 

On August 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a first-amended complaint. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds,

for purposes of this initial screening, that the allegations assert a cognizable claim against Scott

Kernan for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against

defendants R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

As noted below, the court finds plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against

defendant Jeanne Woodford.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J.

Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello and pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may 

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 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

2

delay serving any defendant and attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendant Jeanne

Woodford.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendant Jeanne Woodford, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his

complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J.

Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello, against whom he has stated cognizable claims for relief, then

within 20 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

Jeanne Woodford 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 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.

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 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

3

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

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 his 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). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). A supervisor is liable

for constitutional violations of his subordinates if he participated in or directed the violations, or

knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them, Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989), or if he implemented a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights and is the moving force of the constitutional violation, Hansen v. Black,

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989). 

Plaintiff’s allegation that defendant Woodford promulgated a regulation, neutral on its

face, that governs whether prisoners must share a cell fails to state a claim. 

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 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.

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 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

4

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.

By signing a second-amended complaint plaintiff 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. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 California Administrative Code §§ 3084.1, et seq. An

appeal must be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the

problem” and “action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims

against prison officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an

interview or claims that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the

department. Plaintiff is further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies

his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative

remedies, and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including

his claims against defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello. 

////

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 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

5

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Claims against defendant Jeanne Woodford are dismissed with leave to amend. 

Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state

cognizable claims against this defendant. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

Scott Kernan for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and defendants

R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy

of the pleading and motion for a preliminary injunction filed August 15, 2006, five USM-285

forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J.

Mayfield, M. Lea and D. Botello. Within 20 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 six copies of the endorsed August 15, 2006, complaint and motion for a

preliminary injunction. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of

process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Scott Kernan, R. Mandeville, J. Mayfield, M.

Lea and D. Botello 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 dismissing his defective claims against defendant

Jeanne Woodford without prejudice.

Dated: September 5, 2006.

\watt1844. svc some defs dsms others

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY WATTS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-1844 MCE EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. Notice of Submission of Documents

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 5 completed forms USM-285 

 6 copies of the Augsut 15, 2006 

 First Amended Complaint &

 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

\watt1844.notic of submit docs

Case 2:05-cv-01844-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 09/06/06 Page 6 of 6