Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00754-0/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD B. SPENCER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

N. FAIRFIELD, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 00754 LJO GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

“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. 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 

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 5
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

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility at Corcoran 

(SATF), brings this civil rights action against defendant CDCR officials employed by the CDCR 

at SATF. Plaintiff names as defendants Correctional Officers Fairfield, Lopez and Aguirre. 

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

Plaintiff alleges that on March 20, 2013, Defendants Lopez and Fairfield transferred him 

to a different cell. Fairfield told Plaintiff that he needed his cell for a “DPP predator.1” Plaintiff 

had a chrono for a lower tier and lower bunk housing. Plaintiff alleges that other cells had 

inmates with only one occupant and who did not possess a chrono for a lower tier or lower bunk. 

On April 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendants Lopez and Fairfield. The 

grievance was granted at the first level, partially granted at the second level and denied at the 

third level. Plaintiff does not specify specifically what the grievance issue was, or what 

specifically was granted.2 

On January 3, 2014, Plaintiff received a CDC 128A (custodial counseling chrono) from 

Defendant Aguirre. Plaintiff alleges that this was an adverse action against Plaintiff for filing a 

grievance against Aguirre. Plaintiff filed a grievance against Aguirre on January 7, 2014, for 

filing a false chrono. Plaintiff’s grievance was partially granted. Plaintiff’s own exhibit B, 

however, belies Plaintiff’s allegation that the counseling chrono was filed in retaliation for filing 

an inmate grievance. Plaintiff’s exhibit B indicates that the counseling chrono simply stated that 

 

1 The Court presumes Plaintiff is referring to a Disability Placement Plan inmate. In the amended 

complaint, Plaintiff should indicate if he has a different definition of a DPP inmate. 

2

Plaintiff refers the Court to documents attached to his complaint. The Court will not review 

Plaintiff’s exhibits in order to make the complaint complete. Plaintiff must specifically allege all facts in support of 

his claim in the body of the complaint.

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff told staff that he had a “shower anytime” chrono when, in fact, Plaintiff had a “shower 

per custody” chrono. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lopez and Fairfield transferred Plaintiff from their 

building “from a desire to punish and retaliate against him for exercising his constitutional right 

in filing grievance in relationship to his incarceration.” Plaintiff alleges that Lopez falsely told 

the Appeals Coordinator that the bed move was made to accommodate another inmate who 

required lower tier and lower bunk housing and that there were no other available cells. 

Plaintiff asserts the conclusory allegation that because Lopez and Fairfield failed to transfer 

inmates who were in a cell by themselves and who did not possess a lower bunk or lower tier 

chrono, they were in fact punishing Plaintiff for filing grievances. 

A. Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 5527, 532 (9th

Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 

65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) 

chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably 

advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 

2005); accord Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 

F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff concludes that because his cell move was ordered after he filed a grievance, the 

cell move was taken in retaliation for filing an inmate grievance. Plaintiff alleges no facts that 

support such a conclusory allegation. Plaintiff has no protected interest in being housed in a 

particular cell. Should Plaintiff feel that Defendants have somehow put him in danger or harmed 

him by ignoring his lower tier/lower bunk chrono, he should assert his claim under the Eighth 

Amendment. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that any action on the part of 

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendants chilled his First Amendment activity. That Defendants made a decision that, in 

Plaintiff’s view, makes no sense does not subject them to liability for retaliation. This claim 

must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended 

complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 5
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

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00754-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/15/15 Page 5 of 5