Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02455/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

Y"- 1-- I.~. J 

14 W\R 25 HI 2: 44 

os '~r'J\' "' 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLOS RIOS, 

CDCR #E-52249, 

vs. 

D. PARAMO, R. BLAHNICK; 

K. BALAKIAN; B. CROTTS.,;, 

B. MILLUM; A. HERNANDtlZ; 

R. OLSON; J. RAMIREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

Defendants. 

Civil No. 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO PROCEED 

IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

(ECF Doc. No.2) 

AND 

(2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

FOR FAILING TO STATE A 

CLAIM PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. &§ 1915(e)(2) AND 1915'A(b) 

22 Carlos Rios ("Plaintiff'), currently incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan 

23 Correctional Facility ("RJD"), in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed 

24 a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

25 Plaintiff alleges Defendants have violated his rights to access to the courts by 

26 limiting his access to RJD's prison library on an "ongoing basis," and have retaliated 

27 against him for seeking library access by denying his repeated prison grievances, failing 

28 to properly respond to his complaints, and conspiring to "cover up" the unlawful acts of 

J:\Everyone'_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\J3cv24S5.grt IFP & dS!l1.wpd 1 13cv2455 WQH (JMAJ 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 1 of 11
1 subordinates. See Compi. (ECF Doc. No.1) at 4-11. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and 

2 injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 12-13. 

3 Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 statutory and administrative civil filing fees 

4 required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma 

5 Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Doc. No.2). 

6 L 

7 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 

8 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court ofthe 

9 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a $3 SO filing fee. 

10 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite the plaintiffs failure to prepay 

11 the entire fee only ifhe is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

12 See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). However, ifthe plaintiff 

13 is a prisoner and is granted leave to proceed IFP, he nevertheless remains obligated to 

14 pay the entire fee in installments, regardless of whether his action is ultimately 

15 dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) & (2); Taylor v. Delatoore, 281 F.3d 844, 847 

16 (9th Cir. 2002). 

17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

18 ("PLRA"), a prisoner seeking leave to proceed IFP must also submit a "certified copy 

19 of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for ... the six-month 

20 period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2); 

21 Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 200S). From the certified trust account 

22 statement, the Court must assess an initial payment of20% of (a) the average monthly 

23 deposits in the account for the past six months, or (b) the average monthly balance in the 

24 account for the past six months, whichever is greater, unless the prisoner has no assets. 

25 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b )(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The institution having custody of 

26 

27 

1 Civil litigants filing actions on or after May I, 2013, must pay an additional 

28 administrative fee of$50. See 28 U.S.C. ~ 1914(a), (b); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 

District Court Misc. Fee Schedule (eff. May I, 2013). However, the additional $50 

administrative fee is waived if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP. Id. 

I:\Everyone'-EFILE-PROSE\WQH\lJcv2455.grt IFP & dsm.wpd 2 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 2 of 11
1 the prisoner must collect subsequent payments, assessed at 20% of the preceding 

2 month's income, in any month in which the prisoner's account exceeds $10, and forward 

3 those payments to the Court until the entire filing fee is paid. See 28 U.S.C. 

4 § 1915(b)(2). 

5 In support of his IFP Motion, Plaintiff has submitted certified copies of his trust 

6 account statements pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and S.D. CAL. CIvLR 3.2. 

7 Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1119. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs trust account statements, 

8 as well as the prison certificate issued by a senior accounting officer at RJD which 

9 verifies his account history and available balances. Plaintiffs statements show an 

10 average monthly balance of $231.56, and average monthly deposits of $43.34, but an 

11 available balance of zero in his account at the time it was submitted to the Court for 

12 filing. Based on this financial information, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion to 

13 Proceed IFP (ECF Doc. No.2) and assesses an initial partial filing fee of$46.31 pursuant 

14 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

15 However, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

16 Rehabilitation, or his designee, shall collect this initial fee only if sufficient funds in 

17 Plaintiff s account are available at the time this Order is executed pursuant to the 

18 directions set forth below. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (providing that "[i]n no event 

19 shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil action or 

20 criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which 

21 to pay the initial partial filing fee."); Taylor, 281 F.3d at 850 (finding that 28 U.S.C. 

22 § 1915(b )(4) acts as a "safety-valve" preventing dismissal ofa prisoner's IFP case based 

23 solely on a "failure to pay ... due to the lack offunds available to him when payment is 

24 ordered."). The remaining balance ofthe $350 total owed in this case shall be collected 

25 and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court pursuant to the installment payment provisions 

26 set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

27 / / / 

28 / / / 

I:\Everyone,,--EFILE.PROSE\WQH\13cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 3 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 3 of 11
1 II. 

2 INITIAL SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) AND 1915A(b)(1) 

3 A. Standard of Review 

4 Notwithstanding IFP status or the payment of any partial filing fees, the PLRA 

5 also obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by 

6 those, like Plaintiff, who are "incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, 

7 sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or 

8 conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program," "as soon as 

9 practicable after docketing." See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these 

10 provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions 

11 thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from 

12 defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b); Lopez v. 

13 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2»; Rhodes v. 

14 Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b». 

15 All complaints must contain "a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that 

16 the pleader is entitled to relief." FED.R.ClV.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

17 not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals ofthe elements of a cause of action, supported by 

18 mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroflv. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

19 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007». "Determining 

20 whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a context-specific task that 

21 requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. 

22 The "mere possibility of misconduct" falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. 

23 Id.; see also Moss v. US. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962,969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

24 "When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

25 veracity, and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." 

26 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679; see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,447 (9th Cir. 2000) 

27 ("[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all 

28 allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to 

I;\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 4 13cv;1455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 4 of 11
1 the plaintiff."); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 

2 § 1915(e)(2) "parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)"). 

3 However, while the court "ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, 

4 particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

5 petitioner the benefit of any doubt," Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 

6 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)), it may not, in 

7 so doing, "supply essential elements of claims that were not initially pled." Ivey v. Board 

8 of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). "Vague and 

9 conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient 

10 to withstand a motion to dismiss." Id. 

11 B. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

12 "Section 1983 creates a private right of action against individuals who, acting 

13 under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights." Devereaux v. 

14 Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). Section 1983 "is not itself a source of 

15 substantive rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere 

16 conferred." Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (internal quotation marks 

17 and citations omitted). "To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) 

18 deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) 

19 that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Tsao 

20 v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2012). 

21 C. Plaintiff's Allegations 

22 Plaintiff claims that Defendant Blahnick, who is RJD's Facility C Librarian, 

23 denied him "meaningful access to the court" beginning in September 2012 by limiting 

24 his access to the law library, denying him "PLU" status pursuant to 15 CAL. CODE REGs., 

25 § 3l23(b), 2 and failing to comply with confidentiality procedures governing photocopy 

26 

27 

2 "Inmates who have established court deadlines may apply for Priority Legal User 

(PLU) status to the prison law libraries. Inmates who are granted PLU status based on their 

28 applications shall receive higher priority to prison law library resources than other inmates." 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15 § 3122(b)(20lf). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 5 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 5 of 11
1 practices. See CompI. at 5, 7; PI's Ex. B (ECF Doc. No.1) at 21. Plaintiff further 

2 alleges that the remaining Defendants, all "supervisors" or inmate appeal officials, tasked 

3 with reviewing his administrative grievances, conspired and retaliated against him for 

4 seeking redress by improperly denying and/or processing his grievances and "failing to 

5 stop or fix the wrong[s]" oftheir subordinate officers. See CompI. at 3,5-11. 

6 D. Access to Courts Claims 

7 Prisoners do "~ave a constitutional right to petition the government for redress of 

8 their grievances, which includes a reasonable right of access to the courts." 0 'Keefe v. 

9 Van Boening, 82 F.3d 322,325 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 

10 1279 (9th Cir. 1995). In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court held 

11 that "the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison 

12 authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by 

13 providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons who 

14 are trained in the law." Id. at 828. To establish a violation ofthe right to access to the 

15 courts, however, a prisoner must allege facts sufficient to show that: (1) anon-frivolous 

16 legal attack on his conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement has been frustrated 

17 or impeded, and (2) he has suffered an actual injury as a result. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

18 343,353-55 (1996). An "actual injury" is defined as "actual prejudice with respect to 

19 contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to 

20 present a claim." Id. at 348; see also Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 

21 1994); Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 

22 1083, 1093 (9th Cir. 1996). 

23 Here, Plaintifffails to allege that Defendant Blahnick's refusal to grant him PLU 

24 status or failure to comply with confidentiality photocopy procedures on any particular 

25 occasion precluded his pursuit of a non-frivolous direct or collateral attack upon either 

26 his criminal conviction or sentence or the conditions of his current confinement. See 

27 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355 (right to access to the courts protects only an inmate's need and 

28 ability to "attack [his] sentence[], directly or collaterally, and ... to challenge the 

I:\Everyone\..EFILE-PROSE\WQH\J3cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 6 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 6 of 11
1 conditions of [his] confinement."). In addition, Plaintiff must also, but has failed to, 

2 describe the non-frivolous nature ofthe "underlying cause of action, whether anticipated 

3 or lost." Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). 

4 In short, unless Plaintiff can show that "a complaint he prepared was dismissed," 

5 or that he was "so stymied" by Defendant Blahnick's actions that "he was unable to even 

6 file a complaint," direct appeal, or petition for writ of habeas corpus that was not 

7 "frivolous," his access to courts claim must be dismissed. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; 

8 Christopher, 536 U.S. at 416 ("like any other element of an access claim[,] ... the 

9 predicate claim [must] be described well enough to apply the 'nonfrivolous' test and to 

10 show that the 'arguable' nature of the underlying claim is more than hope."). 

11 E. Administrative Grievance Processing & Respondeat Superior Claims 

12 As to the remaining Defendants, Warden Paramo, Associate Warden Hernandez, 

13 Education Supervisors Balakian and Crotts, Academic Instruction Supervisor Milium, 

14 and RJD Appeals Coordinators Olson and Ramirez, Plaintiffs claims center on their 

15 failure to either correct and/or properly supervise Blahnick via CDC 602 inmate 

16 grievance procedures. See Compl. at 5-11. Plaintiff alleges all these Defendants at one 

17 time or another "failed to stop or fix the wrong[s]," were responsible for abuses [they] 

18 kn[e]w were being committed by their subordinates," and "cover[ed] up misconduct." 

19 Id. at 2-3, 10. 

20 First, a prisoner has no constitutional right to an effective grievance or appeal 

21 procedure, however. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Mann 

22 v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988); see also, e.g., George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 

23 605, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (holding that only persons who cause or participate in civil 

24 rights violations can be held responsible and that "[r]uling against a prisoner on an 

25 administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation"); Shehee v. 

26 Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295,300 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that prison officials whose only roles 

27 involved the denial of the prisoner's administrative grievances could not be held liable 

28 under § 1983); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) ("[A prison] 

I:\Everyone'-EPILE.PROSE\WQH\13cv24SS-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 7 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 7 of 11
1 grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right 

2 upon the inmates."); Jimenez v. Hitfield, 2012 WL 244149 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2012) 

3 ("Because there is no right to any particular grievance process, plaintiff cannot state a 

4 cognizable civil rights claim for a violation of his due process rights based on allegations 

5 that prison officials ignored or failed to properly process grievances."); Wright v. 

6 Shapirshteyn, 2009 WL 361951 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12,2009) (noting that "where a 

7 defendant's only involvement in the allegedly unconstitutional conduct is the denial of 

8 administrative grievances, the failure to intervene on a prisoner's behalf to remedy 

9 alleged unconstitutional behavior does not amount to active unconstitutional behavior 

10 for purposes of § 1983"); Velasquez v. Barrios, 2008 WL 4078766 at *11 (S.D. Cal. 

11 Aug. 29, 2008) ("An official's involvement in reviewing a prisoner's grievances is an 

12 insufficient basis for relief through a civil rights action."). 

13 Second, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to sue Paramo, Balakian, Crotts, Millum, 

14 Hernandez, Olson or Ramirez based on their "legal[] responsib[ility] for the abuses 

15 committed by their subordinates, Compl. at 2-3, his Complaint, fails to "contain 

16 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

17 its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "Because 

18 vicarious liability is inapplicable to ... § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each 

19 government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has 

20 violated the Constitution." Id. at 676; see also Jones v. Community Redevelopment 

21 Agency a/City a/Los Angeles, 733 F.2d 646,649 (9th Cir. 1984) (even pro se plaintiff 

22 must "allege with at least me degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged 

23 in" in order to state a claim). Thus, in order to avoid the respondeat superior bar, 

24 Plaintiff must include sufficient "factual content that allows the court to draw the 

25 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," Iqbal, 556 

26 U.S. at 678, including personal acts by each individual defendant which show a direct 

27 causal connection to a violation of specific constitutional rights. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 

28 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cv24SS-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 8 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 8 of 11
I As currently pleaded, however, Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth only '''naked 

2 assertion[s] devoid of 'further factual enhancement''' sufficient to state a plausible 

3 entitlement to relief against Defendants Paramo, Balakian, Crotts, Milium, Hernandez, 

4 Olson and Ramirez. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 

5 Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has also failed to state a claim against Paramo, 

6 Balakian, Crotts, Milium, Hernandez, Olson and Ramirez pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 

7 § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446. 

8 F. Retaliation & Conspiracy 

9 Throughout his Complaint, Plaintiff also makes reference to "retaliatory bias" and 

10 conspiracies to deny him the "full benefit of the law." See Compl. at 5-6,8-9, 10. 

II "Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails 

12 five basic elements: (1) [a]n assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against 

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

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

15 reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. See, e.g., Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F .3d 

16 443,449 (9th Cir. 2000); Barnett [v. Centoni], 31 F.3d [813] 815-16 [(9th Cir. 1994)]." 

17 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). 

18 As currently pleaded, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to include "sufficient factual 

19 matter" which identifies any particular adverse action was taken against him because he 

20 exercised any constitutional right. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Soranno's Gasco, Inc. v. 

21 Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff must show that the protected 

22 conduct was a "substantial" or "motivating" factor in the defendant's decision to act); 

23 Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. ofEduc. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). Plaintiff 

24 has further fail to allege facts sufficient to show that any Defendants' action failed to 

25 advance a legitimate correctional goal such as "preserving institutional order and 

26 discipline." Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815-16. 

27 Plaintiff s conspiracy claims also fail to include sufficient factual content to permit 

28 the Court "to draw the reasonable inference that [any] defendant is liable" under § 1983. 

I;\Everyone\... EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 9 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 9 of 11
1 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To support a claim ofa conspiracy under § 1983, Plaintiff's 

2 Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to show '''(1) the existence of an 

3 express or implied agreement among the defendant officers to deprive him of his 

4 constitutional rights, and (2) an actual deprivation of those rights resulting from that 

5 agreement. '" Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583,592 (9th Cir. 2010)( quoting Ting v. United 

6 States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir. 1991)). 

7 As currently pleaded, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to sufficiently allege either a 

8 plausible factual basis to show either an express of implied agreement to deny his 

9 constitutional rights, nor any "further factual enhancement" to show an "actual 

10 deprivation" of any violation of any constitutional right. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Avalos, 

11 596 F.3d at 592. 

12 For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible 

13 claim for relief against any person subject to suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Iqbal, 

14 556 U.S. at 678. Therefore, his Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 

15 28U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); § 1915A(b);Lopez, 

16 203 F.3d at 1126-27; Rhodes, 621 F.3d at 1004. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in pro 

17 se, however, the Court having now provided him with "notice of the deficiencies in his 

18 complaint," will also provide him an opportunity to "effectively" amend. See Akhtar v. 

19 Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

20 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). 

21 III. 

22 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

23 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

24 1. Plaintiff's Motion to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF 

25 Doc. No.2) is GRANTED. 

26 2. The Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and 

27 Rehabilitation, or his designee, shall collect from Plaintiff's prison trust account the 

28 initial filing fee assessed in this Order, and shall forward the remainder of the $350 filing 

I:\Everyol1e\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13cIl245S-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 10 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 10 of 11
1 fee owed by collecting monthly payments from Plaintiffs account in an amount equal 

2 to twenty percent (20%) ofthe preceding month's income and shall forward payments 

3 to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10 in accordance 

4 with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b )(2). ALL PAYMENTS SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED 

5 BY THE NAME AND NUMBER ASSIGNED TO THIS ACTION. 

6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy ofthis Order on Jeffrey 

7 A. Beard, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 

8 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. 

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: 

10 4. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to state 

11 a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b). However, Plaintiff is 

12 GRANTED forty five (45) days leave from the date this Order is filed in which to file a 

13 First Amended Complaint which cures all the deficiencies of pleading noted above. 

14 Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be complete in itself without reference to his 

15 original pleading. See S.D. CAL. CIvLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner 

16 & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[A]n amended pleading supersedes 

17 the original."); Kingv. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted) ("All 

18 causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended 

19 complaint are waived.,,).3 

~~ DATED _----"',--'-\'I--!a"--~_'_,-#_,__Y':_V_ 

22 

23 

HON. WILLIAM 

United States Dist 

24 3 Finally, Plaintiff is cautioned that should his Amended Complaint still fail to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, it may be dismissed without further leave to amend and 

25 may hereafter be counted as a "strike" agamst him pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996). "Pursuant to & 1915(g), a prisoner 

6 with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFF." Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 11l3, 1116 n.l (9th 

2 Cir. 2005). "Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which 

27 were dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim," id. 

(internal quotations omitted), "even if the district court styles such dismissal as a denial ofthe 

28 prisoner's application to file the action without prepayment of the full filing fee." O'Neal v. 

Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). 

I:\Everyone\~EFILE-PROSE\WQH\13Cv2455-grt IFP & dsm.wpd 11 13cv2455 WQH (JMA) 

Case 3:13-cv-02455-WQH-JMA Document 5 Filed 03/25/14 Page 11 of 11