Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00851-5/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

1

 Subsequently, plaintiff filed two more complaints, which should have been docketed in

a new civil rights action, rather than in this action, as they did not include this case number and

were not designated as “amended” complaints. They also named new defendants and raised new

claims. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD SCOTT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0851 EFB P

vs.

M. McDONALD,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Howard Scott, an inmate confined at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility,

filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and proceeds in forma pauperis. This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is

before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at

(k)(4). On September 23, 2009, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Dckt.

No. 14. On January 15, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.1 Dckt. No. 24. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 1 of 7
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

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts

establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 2 of 7
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

 Plaintiff appears to refer to defendant Sharrb interchangeably as defendant “Sharpe.”

3

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

(9th Cir. 1978)

In the amended complaint, plaintiff names M. McDonald, and Officers Sharrb, Cooper,

Oateman, and Nelson as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he is blind, and from January 2008 to

May 2008, defendants Sharrb and Cooper refused to honor plaintiff’s request that he be fed in

his cell. Am. Compl., Dckt. No. 24, at 4. Plaintiff further claims that as of March 2008,

defendants Oateman and Nelson also refused to cell-feed plaintiff. Id. at 5. Oateman apparently

told plaintiff that he stopped cell-feeding him at defendant Sharrb’s2

 direction. Id. Plaintiff

claims defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights, as well as his rights under the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Id. at 4, 7-8. 

To state a claim that the conditions of imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment

prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must allege a specific individual was

deliberately indifferent to some basic human need such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or

safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-04 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

347 (1981). A prison official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk

of injury or harm that “is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” See Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

While plaintiff alleges he is blind, he does not allege any facts showing that he needed to

be fed in his cell. For example, plaintiff does not allege that he was unable to walk to the dining

area, that he had a medical chrono requiring that meals be provided in his cell, or that he

otherwise needed to be fed in his cell. Further, while plaintiff indicates that defendants Sharrb

and Cooper refused to cell-feed plaintiff from January 2008 to May 2008, plaintiff does not

indicate for what period of time defendants Oateman and Nelson allegedly refused to cell-feed

plaintiff. As to defendant McDonald, plaintiff fails to include any factual allegations. Plaintiff’s

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 3 of 7
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

allegations are thus factually insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim, and are

dismissed with leave to amend. 

In order to state a claim that a public program or service violated Title II of the ADA, a

plaintiff must show: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either

excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or

activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion,

denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of Portland,

386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004). An ADA plaintiff also “bears the burden of establishing

the elements of the prima facie case, including--if needed--the existence of a reasonable

accommodation that would enable him to participate in the program, service, or activity at

issue.” Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation

marks omitted). 

Because plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that he was unable to eat his meals in the

dining area, and needed to be fed in his cell, he necessarily fails to allege that he was excluded

from participation or denied the benefits of his institution’s services or otherwise discriminated

against. Plaintiff alleges in a conclusory manner that his rights under the ADA have been

violated, but his factual allegations are insufficient to state a claim that is plausible on its face. 

See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949.

Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint, curing the deficiencies

identified by the court in this order, and the September 23, 2009 screening order. The court

notes that the claims raised in plaintiff’s amended complaint are not the same as those raised in

the original complaint. The claims in the original complaint concerned inadequate medical and

dental care, the need to be housed in a lower tier, and being improperly handcuffed behind his

back. If plaintiff still wishes to pursue these claims, he must include them in an amended

complaint.

////

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 4 of 7
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

Additionally, any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local

Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in

the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if

he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do

that causes the alleged deprivation).

It must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences,

the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join

multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims

against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. “The controlling principle

appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as

alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple

claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in

different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit

produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation

Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file

without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless

both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Plaintiff may not change the

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d

at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 

 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading,

including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of

these instructions. 

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). By signing an amended

complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his

allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter

repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his

claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies,

and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to open a new action and file the February 16, 2010

complaint and notice of lawsuit (Dckt. Nos. 27, 28), and the March 24, 2010 complaint (Dckt.

No. 29), in that action. These filings are stricken as improperly docketed in this action, and the

Clerk of the Court shall make a notation on the docket to that effect. 

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

2. Plaintiff’s January 15, 2010 amended complaint (Dckt. No. 24) is dismissed and

plaintiff may, within 30 days of the date this order is served, file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order and the September 23, 2009 screening order. The amended complaint

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Second Amended Complaint.” 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff a copy of the form used in this

court for the filing of a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

4. Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure

to state a claim.

Dated: June 29, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00851-MCE-EFB Document 30 Filed 06/30/10 Page 7 of 7