Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00599-2/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 

SAMUEL SANCHEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-0599-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. He has also 

requested appointment of counsel, submitted a “motion for injunctive relief,” and what he styles 

as a “complaint: supplement.” 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00599-MCE-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/17/16 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 

27 

28 

2

II. Request for Appointment of Counsel 

Plaintiff requests that the court appoint counsel. District courts lack authority to require 

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in section 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. 

Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In exceptional circumstances, the court may request an attorney 

to voluntarily represent such a plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 

1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

When determining whether “exceptional circumstances” exist, the court must consider the 

likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro 

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 

(9th Cir. 2009). Having considered those factors, the court finds there are no exceptional 

circumstances in this case. 

III. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

Case 2:16-cv-00599-MCE-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/17/16 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 

27 

28 

3

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

IV. Screening Order 

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a motion for injunctive relief. ECF No. 1. He 

subsequently filed a document entitled “Complaint: Supplement to the above case no. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983.”1 Neither document, by itself, is sufficient to constitute a complaint setting forth a 

cognizable claim for relief. Rather, it appears from these filings that plaintiff is attempting to file 

a complaint in a piecemeal fashion through separate filings which must then be read together as a 

single complaint. This is not the proper procedure for filing or amending a complaint. Therefore, 

treating plaintiff’s filings--which he collective intends to serve as his complaint--as the complaint, 

they are collectively dismissed. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to submit an amended 

complaint in accordance with the requirements set forth in this order. 

Any amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and allegations against each 

defendant, and must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 

substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (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). 

 1

 The first page of the document states “Continue” at the bottom, but plaintiff did not 

submit any additional pages. 

Case 2:16-cv-00599-MCE-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/17/16 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 

27 

28 

4

Any amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all 

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

Any amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed 

complaint. L.R. 220. That is, plaintiff must file a single amended complaint that includes all 

information relevant to his claim(s). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the 

alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

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. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

That is, plaintiff may not sue any official (such as the CDCR Director) on the theory that the 

official is liable for the unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

To state a viable First Amendment retaliation claim, a prisoner must allege five elements: 

“(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) 

that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). If plaintiff intents to assert a 

retaliation claim, he must allege facts showing that defendants were aware of his prior 

engagement in protected conduct and that his protected conduct was “the ‘substantial’ or 

‘motivating’ factor” behind their alleged misconduct. Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th 

Cir. 2009). Generally speaking, a retaliation claim cannot rest on the logical fallacy of post hoc, 

ergo propter hoc, literally, “after this, therefore because of this.” See Huskey v. City of San Jose, 

204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000). 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00599-MCE-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/17/16 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 

27 

28 

5

 Although plaintiff’s allegations are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings 

drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), plaintiff is 

required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the Eastern 

District of California. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (procedural 

requirements apply to all litigants, including prisoners lacking access to counsel); L.R. 183(a) 

(“Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal 

Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law.”). 

V. Summary of Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 15) is granted. Plaintiff 

shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

2. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 13) is denied. 

3. The complaint (see ECF Nos. 1 & 12) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 

days. The amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case 

and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order may 

result in this action being dismissed for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an 

amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service 

of process by the United States Marshal. 

DATED: June 16, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-00599-MCE-EFB Document 18 Filed 06/17/16 Page 5 of 5