Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522-11/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR BERNABE, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2522 LKK CMK P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 20, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. After being granted several extensions of

time, plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on November 20, 2006. 

In his third amended complaint, plaintiff names twenty-one identified defendants

and names fifty “Doe” defendants. Plaintiff asserts several violations of his constitutional rights;

he asserts that defendants violated his constitutional rights by denying him visitation; by

adversely transferring him to another institution; denying him adequate showers, diet, and other

basic needs; callously disregarding his health and well-being; ignoring his dental care; imposing

punishments without notice or hearing; interfering with his access to the courts; denying him

parole and using excessive force against him. 

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 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

The due process clause does not guarantee a right of unfettered visitation. 

See Kentucky Dep’t of Corr. v Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460-61 (1989). Accordingly,

plaintiff’s visitation claim is not cognizable. Similarly, prisoners have no liberty interest in

being transferred to another prison. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983). To the

extent that plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by a transfer to another prison, this claim

is not cognizable. The duration or legality of confinement is not cognizable in a civil rights

complaint, but instead is properly challenged in a habeas action. See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d

573, 574 (9th Cir.1991) (habeas corpus petition is proper method to challenge legality or

duration of confinement, but civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

confinement). Thus, plaintiff’s claims that defendants have improperly denied him parole are

not cognizable in this civil rights action. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants James Tilton, Teresa A. Schwartz , John Does 23

and 26, and K. Mendoza-Powers violated his civil rights by virtue of being responsible for the

“operation and supervision of CMF officers and staffs...” A supervisor is only liable for the

constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the

violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. For example,

denial of appeals is, in some cases sufficient to establish supervisory liability, see Hamilton v.

Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992), and knowledge of a policy and practice that

allegedly resulted in an inmates rape could be sufficient to establish liability. See Redman v.

County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446-47 (9th Cir. 1991)(en banc). Here, there is no

evidence that defendants Tilton or Schwartz were informed of the alleged violations of plaintiff’s

rights. Accordingly, plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim against these defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Swan and Polk caused him to miss his dinner in

February 2006. This claim is not cognizable for two reasons. First, it does not rise to level of a

constitutional violation. More importantly, it does not relate back to the original December 2005

claim, and therefore, cannot be added to the amended claim. Plaintiff does not state a cognizable

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 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

It is not clear whether defendant Ware was mentioned in the original complaint,

1

however, in light of the liberal interpretation of prisoner complaints, it appears that the denial of

medication issues were mentioned in the original complaint. The claim against defendant Ware

therefore relates back. 

Jones and King were not mentioned in the original complaint, but the deprivation of 2

legal property was. Accordingly, the claim relates back. 

3

claim against these defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Mirich and B Olson used excessive force against

him in March 2006. This claim does not relate back to the original December 2005 claim, and

therefore cannot be added to the amended claim. Plaintiff does not state a cognizable claim

against these defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Sinclair and John Does 48-50 used excessive force

against plaintiff in July 2006. This claim does not relate back to the original December 2005

claim, and therefore cannot be added to the amended claim. Plaintiff does not state a cognizable

claim against these defendants. 

The third amended complaint does states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) with relation to the following three claims:

excessive force in October 2005, deprivation of prescription medicine and denial of access to

legal materials from October 2005 to December 2005. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Nelson

assaulted him by using his keys and baton in October 2005. Liberally construing the complaint,

plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendant Nelson. Plaintiff alleges that defendants

McAllister, Altchek and Ware deprived plaintiff of his needed prescription medicine. Plaintiff 1

alleges that defendants Jones, King and John Does 42-44 denied him access to his legal property

2

from October 19, 2005 until February 2006. The denial of access to legal property is cognizable

from the period of October 19, 2005 through December 2005. 

 If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits of his claims that defendant Nelson used excessive force

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 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

against him, that defendants McAllister, Altchek and Ware deprived him of his needed

medication and that defendants Jones and King denied him access to his legal property. The

court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate for those defendants and will direct service by

the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action

cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to

comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

As noted above, plaintiff’s complaint names fifty “Doe” defendants. The court

cannot order service of process on fictitious defendants. Upon discovering the name of the

“Doe” defendants, [or any of them], plaintiff must promptly file a motion for leave to amend,

accompanied by a proposed amended complaint identifying the additional defendant or

defendants. Plaintiff is cautioned that undue delay in discovering defendants’ names and seeking

leave to amend may result in the denial of leave to proceed against these defendants. 

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

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: C/O Nelson, McAllister, 

Altchek, Ware, Jones, and King.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff six USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed November 20, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Seven copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed November 20,

2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 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

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: December 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 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

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 35 Filed 12/07/06 Page 6 of 6