Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01676/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01676-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. EBERT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01676-DJC-JDP (PC)

ORDER 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

ECF No. 2

SCREENING ORDER

FINDING THAT THE COMPLAINT

STATES A COGNIZABLE FIRST 

AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT EBERT BUT FAILS TO 

STATE ANY OTHER VIABLE CLAIM

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO DECIDE 

WHETHER TO PURSUE THE LONE 

VIABLE CLAIM OR FILE AN AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

ECF No. 1

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, brings this action against several defendants and alleges that 

defendant Ebert retaliated against him for a lawsuit against her by frustrating his access to the 

courts. ECF No. 1 at 4. He also alleges that defendants Ngaya and Inconelli mishandled his 

grievances concerning Ebert’s misconduct. Id. at 6. I find that, for screening purposes, the 

complaint states a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim against Ebert. The other claims 

Case 2:24-cv-01676-DJC-JDP Document 9 Filed 08/19/24 Page 1 of 4
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

are, for the reasons stated below, non-cognizable. Plaintiff must decide whether to proceed with 

his viable claim or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. I will grant his 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. 

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘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 Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Case 2:24-cv-01676-DJC-JDP Document 9 Filed 08/19/24 Page 2 of 4
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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that, after filing a lawsuit that named her as a defendant, Ebert, a litigation 

coordinator at the California Medical Facility, retaliated against him by making his ongoing 

criminal litigation more difficult to conduct. ECF No. 1 at 4. The specifics are hard to discern, 

but plaintiff appears to allege that Ebert restricted his ability to make telephone calls and 

otherwise failed to assist him in that litigation. Id. These allegations are sufficient to state a First 

Amendment retaliation claim, but not a First Amendment access to courts claim. As to the latter,

plaintiff must allege that he has suffered some “actual injury” in the litigation at issue, and he has 

not so alleged.

1

 See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

In a separate but related claim, plaintiff claims that, after he submitted administrative 

grievances concerning Ebert’s misconduct, defendants Ngaya and Inconelli mishandled those 

grievances. ECF No. 1 at 6. Inmates lack a constitutional right to any specific grievance 

procedure, however, and these claims are not actionable as articulated. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 

F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, plaintiff must decide whether to proceed only with his First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Ebert, or delay serving any defendant and file an amended complaint. If 

he chooses the latter, he is advised that the amended complaint must be complete in and of itself,

without reference to this complaint, and should be titled “Amended Complaint.” 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of this order’s entry, plaintiff shall either inform the court in writing 

of his intention to proceed with the claim deemed cognizable in this complaint, or he shall file an 

amended complaint.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this 

order.

1

In a series of confusing allegations, plaintiff does allege that Ebert influenced a 

misdemeanor charge that was brought against his wife. ECF No. 1 at 5. This alleged influence 

ultimately affected plaintiff’s ability to have his wife visit him in prison. Id. These allegations do 

not show that Ebert’s hindrance of plaintiff’s litigation was the cause of this injury, however, and, 

at this point, appears merely to add context to the actionable retaliation claim. 

Case 2:24-cv-01676-DJC-JDP Document 9 Filed 08/19/24 Page 3 of 4
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

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01676-DJC-JDP Document 9 Filed 08/19/24 Page 4 of 4