Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00650-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00650 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE A 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

November 12, 2014, in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California. The matter was designated as a civil rights action. Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint on December 9, 2014. He filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 

15, 2014. On April 28, 2015, the case was transferred to the Fresno Division. In his Second 

Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names as Defendants: President Barack Obama, the U.S. 

Government, California Department of Corrections, California Inspector General, California Internal 

Affairs, and California Director of Corrections. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 6
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

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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

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 by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. DISCUSSION

The claims Plaintiff seeks to raise in this action are not entirely clear. Section 1983 provides 

a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights by persons 

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 6
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

acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. 

County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. To state a 

claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate a link between actions or omissions of each named defendant and 

the violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior, or vicarious, liability under section 1983. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 

F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th 

Cir. 2010).

Plaintiff makes various vague claims of violations of his constitutional rights, including 

fraud, concealment of evidence, interference with mail, access to the courts, access to the law 

library, and equal protection. Plaintiff further challenges the decisions made in another case, Pierce 

v. Gonzales et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00285 JLT P. Plaintiff has not linked any Defendant to any 

viable claims for relief arising out of any alleged violation of Plaintiff’s federal rights. Further, 

Plaintiff’s complaint consists largely of general and/or conclusory allegations, which will not 

support any plausible claims for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. In the 

sections that follow, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards applicable to the claims 

it appears he is seeking to pursue. Plaintiff shall cure the deficiencies in the claims which he 

believes, in good faith, are viable under section 1983.

1. Access to the Courts

Plaintiff has a constitutional right of access to the courts and prison officials may not actively 

interfere with his right to litigate cases. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 

2011). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual 

injury, which requires actual prejudice with respect to planned or existing litigation. Nevada Dep’t 

of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348, 

116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996)) (quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1823 (2012). In addition, 

Plaintiff must establish causation by linking the injury complained of to the actions or omissions of 

one or more named defendants. Phillips v. Hust , 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff alleges denial of access to the law library and general denial of access to the courts, 

but his complaint sets forth no facts showing he suffered any actual injury with respect to litigation.

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 6
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

2. Interference with Mail

Prisoners have “a First Amendment right to send and receive mail.” Witherow v. Paff, 52 

F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995). Prison regulations relating to the regulation of incoming mail are 

analyzed under the Turner reasonableness standard set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 

(1987). Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413-14 (1989). The regulation is valid if it is 

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89. In determining the 

reasonableness of the regulation, court must consider the following factors: (1) whether there is a 

“valid, rational connection between the regulation and the legitimate government interest put 

forward to justify it,” (2) “whether there are alternative means of exercising the right,” (3) the impact 

that the “accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates,” 

and (4) “the absence of ready alternatives.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90.

Here, Plaintiff makes no specific allegations concerning a violation of his right to send and 

receive mail. He merely alleges, generally, that his rights have been infringed. This is insufficient 

to state a claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77.

3. Fraud

The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation under California law are: “(1) 

misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity 

(scienter); (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damages. Okun v. 

Morton, 250 Cal.Rptr. 220, 235 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). All elements must be present and the absence 

of any one element is fatal to recovery. Id.

Here again, Plaintiff generally alleges a denial of his constitutional rights due to fraud. 

Plaintiff makes no specific factual allegations which would support a claim of fraud.

4. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. 

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); 

Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. 

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). 

To state a claim, Plaintiff must show that Defendants intentionally discriminated against him based 

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

on his membership in a protected class. Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; 

Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 

686 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, Plaintiff generally alleges a violation of his due process rights to equal protection. 

However, he fails to state how any Defendant intentionally discriminated against him based on his 

membership in a protected class.

C. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with a final opportunity to file an amended complaint. 

Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th 

Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may 

not be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

(2012). 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). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

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 shall file an 

amended complaint; and

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00650-DAD-DLB Document 28 Filed 10/05/15 Page 6 of 6