Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03249/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03249-2/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 

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:18-cv-3249-EFB P 

ORDER 

The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for joinder of unrelated claims.1

 ECF No. 13. 

Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, ECF No. 16, which is screened below. 

I. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 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 

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

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

1

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 

Americans with Disabilities Act. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Screening Order 

Plaintiff brings six claims against five attorneys and one correctional officer. ECF No. 16. 

These claims appear to all be related to three prior actions filed by plaintiff: (1) Bradford v. 

Marchak, Eastern District Case No. 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM; (2) Bradford v. Ogbuehi, Eastern 

District Case No. 1:15-cv-01918-AWI-BAM; and (3) Bradford v. Kvichko, Eastern District Case 

No. 1:16-cv-01077-LJO-SAB. From the records of these actions, of which the court takes 

judicial notice, it appears that four of the defendant attorneys represented defendants in those 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

actions. The court could not locate a case in which defendant attorney Franklin B. Gordon 

represented a relevant party. Defendant G. Pickett testified as a witness in Marchak. 

Plaintiff first alleges that defendants have repeatedly called prison staff to encourage them 

to attack plaintiff in retaliation for his lawsuits against prison staff and that plaintiff was attacked 

on May 17, 2018, August 8, 2018, October 6, 2018, and June 5, 2019. ECF No. 16 at 2. To state 

a viable claim for retaliation, a plaintiff must present facts showing five elements: (1) that a state 

actor took some adverse action against him (2) because of (3) his protected conduct, (4) that such 

action chilled his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) that the action did not 

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 

(9th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff need not demonstrate that his speech was actually inhibited or 

suppressed, but merely that the defendant’s conduct was such as would chill or silence a person of 

ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities. Id. at 568-69. 

Here, plaintiff has alleged only vague facts that are not sufficient to support several 

requisite elements for his claim against defendants. He has not informed the court of any 

specifics of any of the four alleged attacks (such as, who committed the attacks, where the attack 

occurred) or what facts indicate that the attacks were engineered by defendants to retaliate against 

him. Thus, the claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff next claims that defendants Wilson, Feher, and Gordon lied and presented false 

evidence from defendant Pickett in Marchak to undermine plaintiff’s claim that his colitis caused 

him to leave his deposition in that case. ECF No. 16 at 2-3. According to plaintiff, this deceit 

caused the court to dismiss the case. In fact, the court imposed terminating sanctions against 

plaintiff in Marchak because of plaintiff’s pervasive abusive litigation tactics. The court provided 

a comprehensive history of plaintiff’s harassing litigation tactics, directed at defendants, defense 

attorneys, and the court. Marchak, No. 1:14-cv-01689-LJO-BAM, ECF No. 334. Plaintiff’s 

refusal to participate in his deposition was a small item on the list of misconduct that justified 

dismissal of his case. It is clear that the court would have terminated plaintiff’s case as a sanction 

for the remaining conduct, regardless of whether it had the full story regarding how plaintiff’s 

colitis was impacting him on the day of his deposition. Plaintiff’s claim baldly misrepresents the 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

4 

facts of Marchak and is patently frivolous. Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 328 (1989) 

(describing frivolous factual claims as those that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” and “delusional”). 

Plaintiff next claims that defendant Pickett told him in May 2018 to drop his lawsuit 

(presumably Marchak) and that, if he did, “we will leave you alone.” ECF No. 16 at 3. As 

plaintiff has not alleged that he was dissuaded from any protected activities by this statement, or 

that a person of ordinary firmness would have been, the claim must be dismissed with leave to 

amend. 

Plaintiff next alleges that defendant Parnell lied to the court in Ogbuehi, causing the court 

to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust. Id. Again, plaintiff’s claim is a barefaced 

misrepresentation of what happened in Ogbuehi. That case, like Marchak, was dismissed as a 

sanction for plaintiff’s harassing and abusive litigation tactics. Ogbuehi, No. 1:15-cv-01918-

AWI-BAM, ECF No. 73. The record of Ogbuehi shows that the case was dismissed because of 

plaintiff’s misconduct, not anything defendant Parnell did. The claim is frivolous and will be 

dismissed. 

Plaintiff also claims that defendant Parnell contacted prison guards and that the guards 

then attacked plaintiff and poured feces all over three boxes of plaintiff’s legal property, causing 

him to miss deadlines in Marchak, Kvichko, and Ogbuehi. A review of the court’s records reveals 

that Kvichko, like Marchak and Ogbuehi, was dismissed as a sanction for plaintiff’s harassing 

conduct against defense counsel and the court (as well as his failure to state a claim). Kvichko, 

1:16-cv-01077-LJO-SAB, ECF Nos. 49, 51. Moreover, the attachments to the complaint reveal 

that feces were found not only on plaintiff’s legal property, but also all over his cell, and a 

correctional officer reported that plaintiff had “smeared feces all over his cell to include his 

mattress and his property.” ECF No. 16 at 39. Plaintiff’s claim is belied by his own attachment 

and the record of the three prior cases. As such, the court finds the claim to be frivolous. 

Lastly, plaintiff claims that Elaine Kvichko and defendant Samson lied to the court in 

Kvichko that plaintiff’s claim there was frivolous when they knew it was not. But that case would 

have been dismissed whether or not these defendants represented to the court that plaintiff’s 

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

5 

claim was frivolous, due to plaintiff’s abusive litigation practices. The court accordingly finds 

this claim frivolous and will dismiss it. 

Plaintiff also raises state-law negligence and fraud claims against defendants. The court 

declines to exercise jurisdiction over such claims absent a cognizable federal claim. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3). 

The court cautions plaintiff that this action is not the proper place to challenge the 

conclusions of other judges in other cases. Such challenges must be raised in the original cases or 

by appeal of those cases. Based on the court’s review of plaintiff’s prior actions, the court must 

also admonish plaintiff that it would view with extreme disfavor any attempt by plaintiff to use 

this action to continue harassing conduct toward defendants, counsel, and witnesses involved in 

previous actions. 

The complaint will therefore be dismissed. The court will grant plaintiff one last 

opportunity to amend the complaint to state a cognizable federal claim. Any amended complaint 

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). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in the 

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

6 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 

III. Summary of Order 

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

file a second amended complaint within 30 days from the date of service of this order. The 

second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled 

“Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and/or failure to 

prosecute. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will 

proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

DATED: April 10, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-03249-JAM-EFB Document 18 Filed 04/10/20 Page 6 of 6