Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00354/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREMILE SAINT THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 10-0354 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On January 26, 2010, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. By separate order filed concurrently herewith, plaintiff has been granted

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

Case 3:10-cv-00354-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Plaintiff’s Claim

Plaintiff makes the following allegations in the complaint: On March 20, 2008

plaintiff was returned to custody on a parole violation, with a release date of June 20, 2008. 

Plaintiff was housed at San Quentin State Prison. Various miscalculations during plaintiff’s

incarceration resulted in plaintiff’s being given a higher custody score than was warranted. 

Plaintiff attributes the miscalculations to the fact of plaintiff’s transgender/transexual

identity. Plaintiff complained to correctional counselor Marshall, who told plaintiff to file an

inmate appeal. 

On August 7, 2008, in Solano County, plaintiff was returned to custody on another

parole violation, with a release date of May 7, 2009. On August 25, 2008, plaintiff was

transferred to North Kern State Prison. Subsequently, on March 23, 2009, plaintiff was

transferred to a level 3 yard at Soledad State Prison, specifically, the North B Yard. Plaintiff

alleges the transfer was in retaliation for plaintiff’s prior complaints against staff. 

Plaintiff was advised by another inmate that the North B yard at Soledad was

dangerous for transgender/transexual individuals. Plaintiff was housed on the North B yard

for sixteen days without being seen by the classification committee. During that time,

plaintiff was “harrassed [sic] and intimidated” by other inmates. (Compl. at 2-B.) 

Subsequently, after informing staff about the harassment and intimidation, plaintiff

was transferred to another building on the same yard. Plaintiff was scheduled to see the

classification committee on April 7, 2009. Captain Jordan told Lt. Vahl to be sure that

plaintiff’s points were reduced to a level 2. Plaintiff currently is incarcerated at San Quentin

State Prison. 

Plaintiff claims that during the time he was housed on the North B Yard, “[his] safety

and security had and was compromised intentionally.” (Compl. 3-C.) Plaintiff seeks ten

million dollars in damages. 

Case 3:10-cv-00354-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

C. Analysis

As noted, plaintiff claims retaliation was the motive behind plaintiff’s being housed

on the North B yard, where plaintiff was subjected to harassment and intimidation by other

inmates. 

Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is actionable under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper. 

Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). “Within the prison

context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 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) (footnote

omitted).

Prisoners may not be retaliated against for exercising their right of access to the

courts, see Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir. 1995), which right extends to

access to established prison grievance procedures. See Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279

(9th Cir. 1995). Consequently, a prisoner may not be retaliated against for using such

procedures. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567.

Here, plaintiff alleges that various prison officials retaliated against him because

plaintiff had filed complaints against staff. Plaintiff, however, never identifies the subject

matter of the relevant complaints, nor specifies how the prison officials responsible for

retaliating against plaintiff came to know about those complaints. For example, plaintiff was

incarcerated at three different prisons during the relevant time period but does not identify at

which prison or against whom the complaints were filed. Additionally, plaintiff does not

clearly identify which prison officials were responsible for retaliating against plaintiff. For

example, plaintiff does not identify who made the decision to place and retain plaintiff on the

North B yard. No claim for retaliation can be stated without allegations that specific

individuals took retaliatory action against plaintiff because they knew of plaintiff’s protected

Case 3:10-cv-00354-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

conduct. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s retaliation claim will be dismissed. Plaintiff may, however,

file an amended complaint if plaintiff can in good faith allege facts, subject to proof, that cure

the pleading deficiencies noted above. 

CONCLUSION

Within thirty (30) days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED

COMPLAINT, using the court’s form civil rights complaint, a copy of which is provided

herewith, in order to cure the deficiencies noted above. Plaintiff shall complete the form, and

include in the caption both the case number of this action, No. C 10-0354 MMC (PR), and

the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to amend the

complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies noted above, plaintiff must file an amended

complaint that includes any claims from the original complaint plaintiff wishes to preserve. 

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this

order, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 26, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00354-MMC Document 4 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4