Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01384-1/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

VICTOR RENARD CYRUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK COVELLO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-01384-JDP (PC)

SCREENING ORDER FINDING THAT 

THE AMENDED COMPLAINT STATES A 

COGNIZABLE FIRST AMENDMENT 

RETALIATION CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS QUIRING, 

BUSTAMANTE, YOUNG, AND WINKLER 

ECF No. 8

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS 

FIRST AS MOOT

ECF Nos. 5 & 9

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleges that defendants Quiring, Bustamante, Young, and 

Winkler violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing a staff complaint 

against Quiring. ECF No. 8 at 3-8. These allegations are sufficient to proceed past screening. 

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants’ retaliation violates his Eighth Amendment rights. Id. at 11-

12. Those claims are inadequate to proceed. Thus, plaintiff must choose to proceed only with his 

First Amendment claims or to delay serving any defendant and file another amended complaint. I 

will also grant plaintiff’s most recent application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 9, and 

deny his first, ECF No. 5, as moot. 

Case 2:23-cv-01384-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 3
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

Screening Order

I. Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen a prisoner’s complaint that seeks relief against a governmental 

entity, officer, or employee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable 

claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a 

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2).

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Case 2:23-cv-01384-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 3
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

II. Analysis

Plaintiff’s First Amendment allegations against defendants Quiring, Bustamante, Young, 

and Winkler are suitable to proceed. Plaintiff also alleges, however, that the retaliation, none of 

which appears to have resulted in physical injury or physical attacks on his person, violated his 

Eighth Amendment rights. ECF No. 8 at 11-12. The Eighth Amendment claims cannot proceed 

absent some physical injury. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (no Federal civil action may be brought 

by a prisoner for mental or emotional injury only). Plaintiff’s allegation that the retaliation has 

caused him “anxiety, insomnia, depression, [and] hopelessness,” ECF No. 8 at 12, is insufficient 

to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (“After 

incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual 

punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.”) (quotation marks omitted).

 Plaintiff may either proceed only with his First Amendment claims or he may delay 

service and amend his complaint. He is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the 

current one. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

The amended complaint should be titled “Second Amended Complaint” and refer to the 

appropriate case number.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may either indicate his intent to 

proceed only with his cognizable First Amendment claims or file an amended complaint. If he 

fails to do either, I may recommend this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

2. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form with this order. 

3. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED and its 

predecessor, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2023 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01384-JDP Document 10 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 3