Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00800-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAUL MONTANO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0800 LKK EFB P

vs.

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT 

SOLANO STATE PRISON, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2007, the court found that plaintiff’s complaint violated Rule 8(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend.

On December 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A and, for the reasons explained below, finds it does not state a cognizable claim against

any defendant. To proceed, plaintiff must file an amended complaint.

In the first amended complaint plaintiff describes a series of medical events, including

reactions to medications, being turned away from the medical clinic and being denied medical

care for injuries sustained when he fainted in the shower. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him 

Case 2:07-cv-00800-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 4
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

by the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Neither states nor their agencies are persons under § 1983.

Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Thus, a prisoner who claims his

Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment has been violated by

inadequate medical care must allege that on a specific day an identified state actor with

individual responsibility for obtaining or providing medical care knew the prisoner had a serious

medical need, but was deliberately indifferent to it. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976). Plaintiff therefore must do more than describe the medical needs and the failure to treat

them. He must allege that a particular person, as opposed to the prison or its medical

department, denied him adequate care. Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim under these

standards.

Any amended complaint 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 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). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered 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). 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).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

Case 2:07-cv-00800-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff must

not contain any preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories, griping,

vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v.

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation

of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that

“firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within

minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

A district court must construe 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). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

////

Case 2:07-cv-00800-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he 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. Prison rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See Cal. Code

Regs. tit. 15, § 3005.

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). Plaintiff is further admonished that by signing an

amended complaint he 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 action.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the first amended complaint is dismissed with

leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an original and one copy of the amended

complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Second

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation this

action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a

cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: April 8, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00800-KJN Document 16 Filed 04/08/08 Page 4 of 4