Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

ARMANDO ABREU,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0763 EFB P

vs.

F. BRAGA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. He commenced this action on

October 24, 2008, in the Amador County Superior Court. On March 18, 2009, defendants

removed it to this court and requested that the court screen plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A and grant defendants thirty days from the date of the court’s screening order to

file a response to the complaint. Plaintiff has filed several motions to remand, a motion to

amend the complaint, and a motion to supplement the complaint. 

I. Motions to Remand 

A defendant may remove to the appropriate federal court “any civil action brought in a

State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction . . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district courts have original jurisdiction over cases “arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Once the case is

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 9
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

removed, the district court has original jurisdiction over the claims arising under federal law, and

may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the accompanying state law claims so long as those

claims constitute “other claims that . . . form part of the same case or controversy . . . .” 28

U.S.C. § 1367(a). Here, in addition to various state law claims, plaintiff alleges violations of his

Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. 

Therefore, this court has original jurisdiction over the complaint and removal was proper. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s contention that this court lacks subject matter over this action has no

merit. See Dckt. No. 4 at 6; Docket No. 12 at 1-2. Furthermore, plaintiff’s assertion that he has

been deemed a three-striker under the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), is not

an appropriate basis for remand. See Dckt. No. 3 at 11-12.

II. Motions to Amend and Supplement the Complaint 

On April 16, 2009, plaintiff requested leave to file an “amended civil rights state-courtcomplaint.” Along with his one-page request, plaintiff attached 125 pages of exhibits. 

Thereafter, on May 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to supplement the complaint in this action,

to add the Attorney General of the State of California as a defendant. At this stage of the

proceedings, plaintiff may amend his pleading once as a matter of course and does not need

leave of court to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(a). His motions are therefore denied as

unnecessary. An amended complaint, however, “shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete

in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” L. R. 220. Neither of plaintiff’s

motions include a copy of an amended complaint that is complete in itself without reference to

the October 24, 2008 complaint, and therefore, this action proceeds on the original complaint.

III. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A

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

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 9
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

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

A district court must construe a 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). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting 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. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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). To state a claim against any individual defendant, the plaintiff must allege facts

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 3 of 9
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

showing that the individual defendant participated in or directed the alleged violation, or knew of

the violation and failed to act to prevent it. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) (“A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply

conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil

rights.”); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds

that it states cognizable claims against defendants Braga, Diamond and Campbell. The

complaint does not, however, state a cognizable claim against defendant California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), nor does it state cognizable Fifth Amendment, Sixth

Amendment, or equal protection claims. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against CDCR on the ground that it failed to properly

supervise the other named defendants. However, state agencies, such as the CDCR, are not

“persons” within the meaning of section 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.

58, 71 (1989); see also Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969). 

Further, they are entitled to absolute immunity from monetary damages actions under the

Eleventh Amendment. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337-45 (1979); see also Aholelei v. Dep’t

of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for

money damages in federal court against a state, its agencies, and state officials acting in their

official capacities.”).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. The Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government. Bingue v.

Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir 2008). The Fourteenth Amendment applies to due

process violations by state officials. Id. Plaintiff has only named California state officials as

defendants. Therefore, plaintiff fails to state any cognizable claims under the Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiff claims that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were infringed upon during

his prison disciplinary proceedings. However, the Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 4 of 9
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

prosecutions and prison disciplinary proceedings are not criminal prosecutions. Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings,

plaintiff’s rights are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id.;

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff’s Sixth Amendment claim is therefore

not cognizable.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that persons who are

similarly situated be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S.

432, 439 (1985). To state a claim under § 1983 alleging violations of the equal protection

clause, plaintiff must allege facts showing that he is a member of a protected class. See Harris v.

McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 323 (1980) (indigents); see also City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440-41

(listing suspect classes). Plaintiff has not alleged that he is a member of a protected class, nor

has he plead facts to demonstrate that defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate

against him based upon his membership in a protected class. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). Plaintiff also fails to allege facts

showing that he has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated without a

rational basis for the difference in treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562,

564 (2000); Squaw Valley Development Co. v. Goldberg, 375 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2004).

Therefore, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint, he may do so. However, he is not

obligated to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s decision not to file an amended will be construed

as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendant CDCR, as well as his Fifth Amendment,

Sixth Amendment, and equal protection claims, without prejudice. 

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

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 5 of 9
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

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). 

Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. “The

controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, []

as independent or as alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing

party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1

should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against

different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple

claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required

filing fees-for the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or

appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)

(joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements

are satisfied). 

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

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

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

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 eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all 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. 

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

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

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

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). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 7 of 9
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

8

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, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to amend/supplement the complaint (docket numbers 8, 10) are

denied as unnecessary. 

2. Claims against defendant CDCR, as well as plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment, Sixth

Amendment and equal protection claims are dismissed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint

in accordance with the requirements set forth in this order.

3. The remaining allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable

claims against defendants Braga, Diamond and Campbell. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Defendants

shall, within 30 days of the date this order is served, file a response to the complaint as herein

narrowed. Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must do so no later than 21

days after being served with defendants’ response. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). 

4. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint. The court will construe plaintiff’s

decision not to file an amended complaint as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims

against defendant CDCR, as well as his Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and equal

protection claims, without prejudice.

5. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this

case, and is directed to send the parties copies of the form Consent to Proceed Before a United

States Magistrate Judge.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s requests for remand (docket

numbers 3, 4, and 12) be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 8 of 9
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

9

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: January 26, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00763-KJM-EFB Document 14 Filed 01/27/10 Page 9 of 9