Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00512-23/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILL MOSES PALMER, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 101, 107)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EITHER

FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT OR

NOTIFY COURT OF WILLINGNESS TO

PROCEED ONLY ON COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

(ECF No. 103)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL AND DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS TO RE-SERVE DISCOVERY

RESPONSES WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

(ECF Nos. 104, 108)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO AMEND THE DISCOVERY AND

SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF No. 106)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. Background

Plaintiff Will Moses, Palmer, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following reconsideration

of the prior Magistrate Judge’s order revoking Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status, this action is

proceeding on the first amended complaint, filed August 29, 2007, against Defendants Jordnt and

Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the court in violation of the First Amendment. 

(ECF No. 72.) On December 27, 2011, an order issued opening discovery in this action. (ECF No.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 10
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

81.) Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on April 4, 2012. (ECF

No. 101.) On April 6, 2012, an orderissued denying Plaintiff’s motion because he had not submitted

an amended complaint with his motion. (ECF No. 102.) On that same date, Plaintiff filed a second

amended complaint. (ECF No. 103.) On May 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel

discovery. (ECF No. 104.) On May 16, 2012, an order issued vacating the order denying Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, and directing Defendants to file an opposition or

statement of non-opposition to the motions before the Court. (ECF No. 105.) On June 4, 2012,

Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order and discovery cut-off dates. (ECF No. 106.) 

Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend and an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery on June 6, 2012. (ECF Nos. 107, 108.) 

II. Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an amended complaint to add Defendants Lopez and Munoz as

defendants. Defendants do not oppose the motion to file an amended complaint and request forty

five days in which to file a responsive pleading, if the complaint is found to state a cognizable claim.

Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise,

a party may amend only by leave of the court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). “Rule 15(a) is very liberal and

leave to amend ‘shall be freely given when justice so requires.’” Amerisource Bergen Corp. v.

Dialysis West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to file a second amended complaint shall be granted.

III. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

2

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 2 of 10
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

is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now

higher, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted), and to survive

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to

allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at , 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that

are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

Further, under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a court need

not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. 

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,

do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955). 

IV. Second Amended Complaint Allegations

On December 7, 2005, Plaintiff was placed in the administrative segregation unit (“ASU”). 

(Sec. Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 103.) Plaintiff informed Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex

of his pending court cases and his need to access the law library and his legal property. (Id. at ¶ 3.) 

Plaintiff obtained a court order for law library access and telephone call to a private investigator. 

(Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff began to complain that he was not given adequate law library access or his court

ordered phone calls. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that in retaliation for these complaints, Defendants

Lopez and Jordnt refused to issue Plaintiff his legal property. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Defendants Jordnt and

Lopez informed Plaintiff that they had searched and were not able to find his property, although it

3

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 3 of 10
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

had actually been received by the institution. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9.) Defendants Jordnt and Bardonnex

denied Plaintiff access to his legal materials and Defendant Bardonnex destroyed Plaintiff’s requests

for copying. (Id. at ¶ 10.) 

Plaintiff contacted the court and as a result, an order issued directing the Attorney General

to contact prison officials regarding Plaintiff’s legal property. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Defendants Bardonnex

and Munoz were directed to provide Plaintiff with his legal property. Plaintiff noticed that the box

which contained his television set was wet on the bottom and a cable screw had been broken. (Id.

at ¶ 13.) Defendant Bardonnex stood four to five feet away from Plaintiff and opened two of

Plaintiff’s five boxes of legal documents. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was instructed to tell Defendant

Bardonnex what he needed. Plaintiff began selecting folders with the relevant case numbers,

however after going through only two of the boxes, Defendant Bardonnex informed Plaintiff that it

was time for him to go home, leaving Plaintiff without the documents he needed. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff complained to the court a second time, and an order issued directing the prison to

provide Plaintiff with his legal documents and typewriter. (Id. at ¶ 16.) On seeing Plaintiff’s

typewriter in his cell, Defendant Munoz became irate and demanded that Plaintiff turn over his

typewriter. Plaintiff informed Defendant Munoz that he had a court order for the typewriter and a

right to refuse the unlawful instruction to give it up. (Id. at ¶ 17.) After Plaintiff was threatened with

pepperspray and cell extraction, Defendant Munoz informed Plaintiff that he would take Plaintiff’s

typewriter while he showered and it would end up like Plaintiff’s television. (Id. at ¶ 18.) As a

result of not having his legal paperwork and being denied access to the law library, Plaintiff had his

habeas proceedings dismissed, was unable to effectively prosecute his civil proceedings, and

informed the trial judge that he was pleading no contest to the criminal charges due to being harassed

and retaliated against by defendants. (Id. at ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, Bardonnex, and Munoz violated the First

Amendment by retaliating against him for exercising his protected right and by denying access to

the courts. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Bardonnex and Munoz violated his

Fourteenth Amendment rights by destroying his television set. (Id. at p. 6.) Plaintiff is seeking

compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. (Id. at p. 7.)

4

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 4 of 10
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

V. Discussion

A. Retaliation

A plaintiff may state a claim for a violation of his First Amendment rights due to retaliation

under section 1983. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). A viable claim of

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment consists of five 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 reasonable advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408

F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff’s allegations that, because he complained that he was not receiving library access

and court ordered phone calls, Defendants Lopez and Jordnt refused to release his legal property, and

Defendant Bardonnex destroyed his requests for copying are sufficient to state a claim for retaliation

in violation of the FirstAmendment. However, Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant Munoz became

upset upon seeing Plaintiff’s typewriter in his cell and threatened to take it while he showered are

insufficient to allege adverse action. While Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Munoz stated his

typewriter would end up destroyed and not working like his television, this is insufficient to show

that Defendant Munoz was responsible for the damage to Plaintiff’s television set, nor does the

complaint set forth any factual allegations that his typewriter was taken or destroyed. Plaintiff fails

to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Munoz.

B. Access to the Courts

Plaintiff alleges an access to the courts claim based upon his habeas petition being dismissed,

being unable to effectively litigate his civil cases, and his criminal case. Inmates have a fundamental

constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). While Plaintiff alleges a violation due to his inability to

effectively litigate his civil actions, the right is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the

inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights

actions. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. Prisoners do not have a right to bring civil actions under the First

Amendment. Further although Plaintiff alleges that he told the judge in his criminal case he was

5

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 5 of 10
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

pleading no contest due to retaliation, this is insufficient to state a claim for denial of access to the

court. 

Plaintiff’s allegation that his habeas petition was dismissed due to his not having access to

his legal property is sufficient to state a claim against Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex. 

C. Property Deprivation

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Bardonnex and Munoz destroyed his television set in

violation oftheFourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Bardonnex was present

when he discovered the damage to his television set is insufficient to link Defendant Bardonnex to

the damage. Plaintiff has not set forth any factual allegations sufficient to link any defendant to the

damage to his television set.

Finally, even if Plaintiff was to link any named defendant to the damage to his television, he

fails to state a cognizable claim. While an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is

actionable under the Due Process Clause, neither a negligent nor intentional unauthorized

deprivation of property by a prison official is actionable if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is

available for the loss. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521,

1524 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff alleges that his television was damaged sometime during the transfer

between institutions. Whether the cause of the property loss or damage was intentional and

unauthorized or negligent, Due Process is satisfied if there is a meaningful postdeprivation remedy

available to Plaintiff. Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533. Plaintiff has an adequate post-deprivation remedy

available under California law. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 810-895). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim.

D. Declaratory Relief

In addition to money damages, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that his rights were violated. “A

declaratory judgment, like other forms of equitable relief, should be granted only as a matter of

judicial discretion, exercised in the public interest.” Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood Village,

333 U.S. 426, 431 (1948). “Declaratory relief should be denied when it will neither serve a useful

purpose in clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate the proceedings and afford

relief from the uncertainty and controversy faced by the parties.” United States v. Washington, 759

6

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 6 of 10
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

F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). In the event that this action reaches trial and the jury returns a

verdict in favor of Plaintiff, that verdict will be a finding that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were

violated. Accordingly, a declaration that Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex violated

Plaintiff’s rights is unnecessary.

E. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiff seeks an injunction enjoining Plaintiff from depriving him of his legal property,

including his typewriter and legal books. As Plaintiff has been previously informed on several

occasions, the relief he is seeking is unable to be granted in this action. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act places limitations on injunctive relief. Section

3626(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part, “[p]rospective reliefin anycivil action with respect to prison

conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a

particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless

the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the

violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of

the Federal right.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). 

The federal court’s jurisdiction is limited in nature and its power to issue equitable orders

may not go beyond what is necessary to correct the underlying constitutional violations which form

the actual case or controversy. 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555

U.S. 488, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83,

103-04, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S. Ct. 1660,

1665 (1983); Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 969 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff’s claim in this

action arises from a past incident in which he alleges he was subject to retaliation. The pendency

of this action does not confer on the Court jurisdiction to issue an order directing that the prison

provide Plaintiff with access to his legal property and typewriter because such an order would not

remedy the underlying legal claim, which involves Defendants’ past conduct. 18 U.S.C. §

3626(a)(1)(A); Summers, 129 S. Ct. 1142 at 1149; Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 103-04; Lyons, 461 U.S.

at 101; Mayfield, 599 F.3d at 969. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is not cognizable. 

Accordingly, this action shall proceed as one for money damages only.

7

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 7 of 10
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

VI. Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel alleging Defendants have not provided discovery within

the time granted by the Court. Defendants respond, with a declaration signed under penalty of

perjury by defense counsel, that discovery was served on April 17, 2012, within the fifteen day

extension of time granted by the Court. The discovery has not been returned and until Plaintiff filed

the motion to compel Defendants were unaware that he had not received their responses. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel shall be denied, and Defendants are to re-serve their

discovery responses within fourteen days.

VII. Motion to Amend the Discovery and Scheduling Order

Plaintiff requests that the amended pleading deadline be extended from June 27, 2012, to

August 27, 2012, and the discovery cut-off date be extended from August 27, 2012, to October 27,

2012. 

Since Plaintiff is being granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint within thirty

days, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the amended pleading deadline to August 27, 2012 is denied. If

Plaintiff needs additional time to file an amended complaint, he can file a motion for an extension

of time setting forth good cause. Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion to extend the

discovery cut-off date is premature. Defendants shall be serving their discovery responses within

fourteen days and discovery in this action is open until August 27, 2012. Accordingly Plaintiff’s

motion to amend the discovery and scheduling order shall be denied.

VIII. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint sets forth a cognizable claim against Defendants

Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the courts in violation of the

First Amendment, but does not state any other claims for relief under section 1983. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies

identified by the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding only

against Defendants Lopez, Jordnt, and Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the courts

in violation of the First Amendment, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in writing. The other

8

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 8 of 10
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

defendants and claims will then be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff will then be

provided with one summons and one USM-285 forms for completion and return. Upon receipt of

the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on Defendant

Lopez. 

If Plaintiff elects to amend, his 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, Iqbal,129 S. Ct. at 1948-49; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Although accepted as true,

the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .

. . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The mere possibility of misconduct is

insufficient to state a claim. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Further, Plaintiff may not change the nature

of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d

605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, 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 220. 

Therefore, “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an

amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand,

644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, filed April 4, 2012,

is GRANTED;

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

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified bythe Court

in this order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an amended

complaint and is willing to proceed only against Defendants Lopez, Jordnt,

and Bardonnex for retaliation and denial of access to the courts in violation

9

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 9 of 10
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

of the First Amendment;

4. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order;

5. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, filed May 15, 2012, is DENIED; 

6. Within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Defendants shall re-serve

their discovery responses; and

7. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the discovery and scheduling order, filed June 4, 2012,

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 8, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

Case 1:06-cv-00512-LJO-BAM Document 109 Filed 06/08/12 Page 10 of 10