Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00792/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00792-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH LAMOTTE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0792 DFL KJM P

vs.

CAPT. MORENO, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $4.66 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:06-cv-00792-JAM -KJM Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

2

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

////

Case 2:06-cv-00792-JAM -KJM Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

Plaintiff alleges that he has been subjected to discipline because of his religiousbased refusal to comply with the prison’s grooming regulations. Although he names several

defendants, he has not explained how their actions or inactions have contributed to the perceived

violation of his First Amendment rights. 

Prisoners do not lose all rights to free exercise of religion upon incarceration.

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, (1972). However, these rights are "necessarily limited by the fact of

incarceration and may be curtailed in order to achieve legitimate correctional goals or to maintain

prison security." O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d

282 (1987). Therefore, "[i]n order to establish a free exercise violation [plaintiff] must show the

defendants burdened the practice of his religion, by preventing him from engaging in conduct

mandated by his faith, without any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological

interests ." Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 736 (9th Cir.1997) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482

U.S. 78, 89). Plaintiff’s allegations are too conclusory for the court to determine whether he

states a claim.

Moreover, a plaintiff must connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed

denial of his rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for

deliberate indifference to assault requires that official know of and disregard an “excessive

risk”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises

only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is

no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44

(9 Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal connection” in section 1983 cases between named th

defendant and claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998),

cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that

show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). There

can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

Case 2:06-cv-00792-JAM -KJM Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

(1976). The court cannot determine from the complaint what role, if any, any of the named

defendants–Schwartz, Pappas, Veal, and Moreno--played in the alleged deprivation of plaintiff’s

rights.

Finally, although plaintiff does not include a complaint against defendant Moreno

in the body of his complaint form, he has attached various grievance documents concerning

Moreno’s alleged name-calling. If this is the extent of plaintiff’s claim against defendant

Moreno, it does not state a claim under the civil rights act. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092

(9th Cir. 1996), amended by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (verbal harassment does not state a

claim).

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Finally, plaintiff is cautioned to make his claims specific rather than simply

relying on attached exhibits. While the court must construe the complaint liberally, it is under no

obligation to construct plaintiff’s claims from a mass of attached papers. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $4.66. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

Case 2:06-cv-00792-JAM -KJM Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 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

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: December 11, 2006.

2

lamo0792.14

Case 2:06-cv-00792-JAM -KJM Document 12 Filed 12/12/06 Page 5 of 5