Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03196/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03196-3/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 

JOSE GONZALES, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-3196-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis in an action 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff has submitted a second amended complaint which is 

before the court for screening. 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

///// 

 

1

 The case was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 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

 The court reviewed plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to § 1915A and dismissed it for 

violating Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 9 at 3. Thereafter, plaintiff 

filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 10. The court noted that plaintiff’s allegations in the 

amended complaint regarding separate incidents were intermingled, making it very difficult to 

determine the scope of plaintiff’s claims against each defendant. ECF No. 11 at 4. The court also 

noted that plaintiff’s inclusion of lengthy legal conclusions and redundant factual allegations 

made it difficult for the court to perform its duty under § 1915A. Id. at 4-5. Nevertheless, the 

court reviewed the amended complaint and determined that, liberally construed, it stated the 

following potentially cognizable claims: (1) that defendants Gamberg, Brackett, Marquez, and 

Harrison violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process in validating plaintiff as 

a gang member; and (2) that defendants Cate and Gower violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by retaining plaintiff in the Security Housing 

Unit. 

 The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants Wheeler and Lively as 

improperly joined, explaining: 

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, 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). Any amended complaint may not change the nature of this suit by 

alleging new, unrelated claims. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

ECF No. 11 at 5. The court also dismissed defendant Smith, as plaintiff failed to plead sufficient 

facts to state a cognizable claim against him. Id. at 5-6. 

///// 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 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

 The court provided clear instructions to plaintiff on how to proceed: he could either file a 

second amended complaint, or he could submit documents to allow the United States Marshal to 

serve defendants Cate, Brackett, Gamberg, Gower, Harrison, and Marquez with plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint. See id. Plaintiff failed to follow these instructions. Instead, he did both. On 

April 5, 2013, plaintiff submitted a second amended complaint, as well as documents for service 

of process. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order has delayed the progress of this 

action. Since it appears that plaintiff wishes to proceed on his second amended complaint, the 

court will screen it pursuant to section 1915A. 

 Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint is unnecessarily long, 

overly detailed in some respects, while too vague and conclusory in others, and confusingly 

repetitive. After a careful reading, the court finds that it again states the following potentially 

cognizable claims: (1) that defendants Gamberg, Brackett, Marquez, and Harrison violated 

plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process in validating plaintiff as a gang member; 

and (2) that defendants Cate and Gower violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free 

from cruel and unusual punishment by retaining plaintiff in the Security Housing Unit. 

 As set forth above, the court thoroughly screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 

informed plaintiff of the numerous deficiencies therein. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

fails to correct those deficiencies. Plaintiff now includes allegations that Smith improperly 

confiscated his property, that Wheeler used excessive force, committed assault and battery, and 

retaliated against plaintiff, and that Lively also used excessive force, committed assault and 

battery, and also conducted punitive and retaliatory cell searches. As plaintiff is aware, these 

claims are not properly joined in this action. 

 Plaintiff asserts that these additional claims are properly joined because Gamberg was a 

superior officer to Wheeler, Lively, and Smith. Plaintiff alleges that Wheeler and Lively were 

present when Gamberg “threatened to make plaintiff’s life miserable for failing to cooperate in 

his investigation.” Plaintiff then alleges that Gamberg, Wheeler, Lively, and Smith were all coconspirators “to make plaintiff’s life miserable” and that Gamberg directed Wheeler, Lively, and 

Smith, as his “co-conspirators,” to “commit retaliatory acts with the improper intent to deprive 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 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

plaintiff of his rights.” Plaintiff has previously been informed of the requirements for stating a 

conspiracy claim. See ECF No. 11 at 4. Plaintiff’s conclusory and speculative allegations of a 

conspiracy are not sufficient to state a valid section 1983 claim. See Karim-Panahi v. Los 

Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff’s attempt to include in this 

action his claims against Wheeler, Lively, and Smith, by alleging that they were part of a 

conspiracy with Gamberg, fails. Plaintiff must pursue his claims against Wheeler, Lively, and 

Smith in a separate lawsuit. 

 In addition, plaintiff repeatedly alleges that Gamberg retaliated against plaintiff for failing 

to participate in Gamberg’s investigation, and plaintiff notes that this “retaliation” took place after 

plaintiff filed inmate appeals. Plaintiff has been informed of the requirements for stating a First 

Amendment retaliation claim. See ECF No. 11 at 3. His allegations fail under those standards. 

Plaintiff’s purported failure to participate in Gamberg’s investigation is not conduct protected by 

the First Amendment. Allegations concerning the timing of Gamberg’s adverse actions relative 

to plaintiff’s filing of administrative appeals are not enough to make out a retaliation claim. The 

adverse actions must be motivated by the inmate’s protected conduct, not merely follow them in 

time. 

 Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed only on the claims identified herein against defendants 

Cate, Brackett, Gamberg, Gower, Harrison and Marquez, and the court recommends that all 

remaining claims and defendants be dismissed without leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Under Ninth Circuit case law, district courts are only required 

to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved. Courts are not required to grant 

leave to amend if a complaint lacks merit entirely.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The second amended complaint states the following potentially cognizable claims: (a) 

that defendants Gamberg, Brackett, Marquez, and Harrison violated plaintiff’s Fourteenth 

Amendment right to due process in validating plaintiff as a gang member; and (b) that defendants 

Cate and Gower violated plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual 

punishment by retaining plaintiff in the Security Housing Unit; and 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 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

2. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a 

copy of the April 5, 2013 amended complaint, six USM-285 forms and instructions for service of 

process on defendants. Within 30 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents, along with sufficient copies of the documents listed therein. 

The court will transmit the documents to the United States Marshal for service of process 

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Cate, Brackett, Gamberg, 

Gower, Harrison, and Marquez will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the 

deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to comply with 

this order may result in this action being dismissed. 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that, with the exception of the claims identified 

herein against defendants Cate, Brackett, Gamberg, Gower, Harrison and Marquez, all remaining 

claims be dismissed from this action as improperly joined and/or for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: November 19, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JOSE GONZALES, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-3196-GEB-EFB P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s 

Screening Order: 

 1 completed summons form 

 6 completed forms USM-285 

 7 copies of the endorsed April 2, 2013 second amended complaint 

 

Dated: 

 ____________________________ 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-03196-GEB-EFB Document 16 Filed 11/19/13 Page 6 of 6