Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02924/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02924-0/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

AARON CARRILLO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2924 RRB DAD P

vs.

M. PENA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $5.42 will be assessed by this

order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate

agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s prison trust account and forward it to

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 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

2

the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of

twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the

Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in

full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A claim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted only if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the

claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651

F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 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

3

to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

Here, plaintiff contends that he was re-validated as an EME gang associate and

transferred back to Pelican Bay State Prison for an indeterminate term in the security housing

unit (SHU). He names seventeen defendants and brings eight causes of action challenging this

action by prison officials. For the following reasons, the complaint will be dismissed with leave

to file an amended complaint. 

I. Supervisorial Defendants

Plaintiff has named several defendants who hold supervisorial positions, including

the warden and associate warden of California State Prison - Sacramento (CSP-Sac) and the chief

of inmate appeals. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In his complaint, plaintiff does not provide any allegations concerning the

involvement of the supervisorial defendants. Plaintiff makes only a vague allegation that

supervisory defendants failed to properly train and supervise subordinate employees. This is not

sufficient. Should plaintiff decide to names supervisory defendants in his amended complaint, he

must provide factual allegations demonstrating that they were directly involved in his gang

validation or the alleged constitutional violations.

II. Malicious Misclassification

In his first cause of action, plaintiff claims that defendants violated the Eighth and

Fourteenth Amendments by “maliciously and sadistically placing and retaining plaintiff in the

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 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

4

SHU despite their knowledge that plaintiff is not an active associate of any prison gang.” 

(Comp., Attach. at 19.) The allegation that a prison disciplinary charge was false does not state a

cognizable claim where the prisoner is provided procedural due process protections . See

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 F.2d 949, 951

(2d Cir. 1986); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141 (7th Cir. 1984); Lopez v. Horel, No. C

06-4772 SI (pr), 2006 WL 3511978 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2006) (“A prisoner has no constitutionally

guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly accused of conduct which may result in the

deprivation of a protected liberty interest. As long as a prisoner is afforded procedural due

process in the disciplinary hearing, allegations of a fabricated charge fail to state a claim under §

1983.”). Thus, in any amended complaint he should choose to file, plaintiff should not include

this cause of action. 

III. Conspiracy

Plaintiff also alleges that all the defendants conspired to deprive him of his

constitutional rights. In order to prevail on a conspiracy claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must

allege and prove some deprivation of a constitutional right which resulted from the alleged

conspiracy. See Woodrum v. Woodward County, Okla., 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). 

“A conspiracy occurs only when the parties have reached ‘a unity of purpose or a common design

and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.’” William Inglis & Sons

Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting

American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 809-10 (1946)). Thus, a plaintiff must

allege facts that if proven would show that there was an agreement by the defendants to violate

his constitutional rights. See Woodrum, 866 at 1126; Fonda v. Gray, 707 F.2d 435, 438 (9th Cir.

1983). While it is not necessary to prove that each participant in a conspiracy know the exact

parameters of the plan, they must at least share the general conspiratorial objective. See Fonda,

707 F.2d at 438; see also Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). Here, plaintiff

has not provided sufficient allegations to support a conspiracy claim. 

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 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

5

In addition, plaintiff has alleged a conspiracy based on section 1985 of the Civil

Rights Act which “proscribes conspiracies to interfere with civil rights.” Sanchez v. City of

Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). Section 1985(3) was originally

passed as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and provides:

[i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire . . . , for

the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or

class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal

privileges and immunities under the laws . . . whereby another is

injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and

exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States,

the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the

recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation,

against any one or more of the conspirators.

42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Although the purpose of § 1985(3) was to enforce the rights of African

Americans and their supporters, it has been extended to protect non-racial groups only if the

courts have designated the class in question as a suspect or quasi-suspect classification. Holgate

v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). In his amended complaint, if plaintiff intends to

pursue this claim, he must identify his membership in a protected class and alleged facts which

evidence a conspiracy. See id.

IV. Requirements for Amended Complaint

In his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how the

conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege

in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. 

There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423

U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 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

6

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 28, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $5.42. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must

use the form complaint provided by the court; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance

with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form

complaint for a section 1983 action.

DATED: October 11, 2007.

DAD:4

carri2924.14

Case 2:06-cv-02924-JAM-DAD Document 7 Filed 10/12/07 Page 6 of 6