Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00233-8/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

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, No. CIV S-06-0233-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Doc.

23), filed on October 6, 2006, and referred to the undersigned for statutory screening pursuant to

the court’s January 8, 2007, order. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff names the following as defendants: Kernan; Childress; Pimentel; Rendon;

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 01/10/07 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

The second amended complaint deletes Campbell as a defendant to this action and 1

adds Kernan. Because the second amended complaint supercedes the prior pleading, Campbell

is no longer a defendant to this action. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to terminate

Campbell as a defendant and to add Kernan as the lead defendant for caption purposes. 

Process directed to defendant Pimental was returned unexecuted on September 5, 2

2006. On September 13, 2006, the court directed plaintiff to seek additional information

concerning this defendant and to notify the court once such information was obtained. To date,

plaintiff has not provided any additional information and this defendant remains unserved. 

2

and Williams. In the first amended complaint, plaintiff claimed that prison officials issued a 1

rules violation report against plaintiff based on false information and that, despite having been

found “not guilty” of the rules violation, the false report remains in his file due to the improper

actions of defendants. Plaintiff stated that this has resulted in his being ineligible for certain job

assignments and reduced pay. Plaintiff also claimed that his chances of parole are jeopardized

by the existence in his file of the false rules violation report. Plaintiff sought removal of the

documents from his file as well as compensatory damages. Defendants Childress and Rendon,

along with former defendant Campbell, appeared in the action on September 8, 2006, by way of

a motion to dismiss. That motion was granted in part and denied in part and, in an order issued 2

on January 8, 2007, the court specified that this action proceeds on plaintiff’s due process claim

based on denial of parole. 

Now before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, which the

undersigned has been directed to screen for sufficiency. With respect to the remaining claim, all

allegations are substantially the same. However, because the second amended complaint now

names a new defendant – Kernan – the court must consider whether it is sufficient as to this

defendant. In the second amended complaint, plaintiff indicates that defendant Kernan is the

warden of Mule Creek State Prison – where the events alleged in the complaint occurred – and

asserts that defendant Kernan knew of the alleged due process violation but refused to

investigate plaintiff’s claim. 

The second amended complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 01/10/07 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

3

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff

has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds

that service is appropriate 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. Because defendants Childress, Rendon, and

Williams have already appeared in the action, they will be directed to file an answer to the

second amended complaint. The court will forward plaintiff only those documents necessary for

service of defendant Kernan and re-service of defendant Pimental. 

Also pending before the court is defendants’ request that the court conduct the

foregoing statutory screening of the second amended complaint. Defendants assert that the

second amended complaint repeats claims which the court has dismissed. Pursuant to the

January 8, 2007, order, plaintiff’s due process claim based on job loss and lost pay has been

dismissed with prejudice and this action proceeds on the due process claim regarding parole

only.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Campbell as a defendant

and to add Scott Kernan as the lead defendant on the docket;

2. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

KERNAN;

CHILDRESS;

PIMENTEL;

RENDON; and

WILLIAMS;

3. Defendants Rendon, Williams, and Childress shall file an answer to the

second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order; and

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 01/10/07 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

4

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms – one for

defendant Kernan and one for defendant Pimental – one summons, an instruction sheet, and a

copy of the second amended complaint filed October 6, 2006; and

5. Within 30 days of the date of service 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. Two completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Three copies of the endorsed second amended complaint.

DATED: January 9, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 01/10/07 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

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ONTIVEROS, No. CIV S-06-0233-LKK-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

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

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the second amended complaint.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00233-LKK -CMK Document 29 Filed 01/10/07 Page 5 of 5