Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00239-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDEL PADILLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0239 FCD EFB P

vs.

ROOTER, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Fidel Padilla, a state prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff’s complaint concerns events alleged to have occurred while he was housed at Deuel

Vocational Institute. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Dckt. No. 11. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and

(2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to

collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2).

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 11
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

II. Screening Order

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states cognizable First Amendment claims against defendants Perez,

Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete for interfering with plaintiff’s outgoing mail. The

remaining allegations in the complaint do not state a cognizable claims and will therefore be

dismissed with leave to amend.

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

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 11
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

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 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). 

A. Claim One

Plaintiff alleges that he sent many letters and one habeas petition to different law

agencies and courts, but did not receive any responses. According to plaintiff, defendants Perez,

Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete told plaintiff that they threw away his legal mail

so that he would not have access to the courts. Plaintiff alleges that he informed defendant Lt.

Fox about this, but that he did not do anything. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Adolfson

denied plaintiff use of the law library. 

In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that prison

inmates have a constitutionally protected right to access the courts to bring civil rights actions to

challenge their conditions of confinement and to bring challenges to their criminal convictions. 

518 U.S. at 351, 354-55. The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and

civil rights actions. Id. at 354-55. To state a claim he was denied access to the courts, plaintiff

must allege that the deprivation actually injured his litigation efforts, in that defendants hindered

his efforts to bring, or caused him to lose, an actionable claim of this type. See id. at 351. 

Plaintiff has failed to provide factual allegations demonstrating such a deprivation. Accordingly,

these claims are dismissed. 

////

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 3 of 11
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

Prisoners enjoy a First Amendment right to send and receive mail. See Witherow v. Paff,

52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407 (1989)). 

Liberally construed, the allegations against defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano,

and Garrete appear to state a claim for relief under § 1983 for a violation of plaintiff’s First

Amendment rights for their allegedly wrongful interference with his outgoing mail. However,

plaintiff’s allegations against Lt. Fox are insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief, as a

supervisor may be liable “for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor

participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff alleges that he

informed Lt. Fox that his mail had been confiscated, but plaintiff does not allege facts indicating

that Fox participated in, or knew of and failed to prevent, the alleged wrongs. Claims against

Fox are therefore dismissed. 

B. Claim Two 

Plaintiff alleges that unnamed correctional officers broke into his house, planted

evidence, falsely arrested him, lied to the police, and stalked and harassed him. Plaintiff claims

to be falsely imprisoned and that he has asked for help as result. Plaintiff claims that after he

“tried going to court . . . they started retaliating” by sending plaintiff a “radio full of gay sexual

harassment,” taking his food, throwing away his mail, defecating in his cell, harassing him,

reading his legal mail, and denying him use of the law library. Plaintiff then lists defendants

Gubak, Ramirez, Perez, Mirna, Sixtos, Amo, Garrette, Montano, Puzon, Rooter, and Aguilar,

and states that they “were all retaliating from October 5, 2009 to December 30, 2009.” 

To prove retaliation, plaintiff must show that a state actor took some adverse action

against him because of his protected conduct, and that such action chilled the inmate’s exercise

of his First Amendment rights and did not reasonably advance a legitimate penological purpose. 

See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813,

815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). 

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 4 of 11
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

Plaintiff must show that the type of activity he was engaged in was protected by the First

Amendment and that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor for the alleged

retaliatory acts. See Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977); Rhodes,

408 F.3d at 567-68. Retaliation is not established simply by showing adverse activity by

defendant after protected speech; rather, plaintiff must show a nexus between the two. See

Huskey v. City of San Jose, 204 F.3d 893, 899 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s retaliation claims must be dismissed because he has not alleged sufficient facts

that would suggest he was engaged in protected conduct, as plaintiff does not explain what he

means when he “asked for help” or “tried going to court.” Nor has plaintiff shown that there

exists a nexus between any First Amendment activities and the complained-of actions of

defendants Gubak, Ramirez, Perez, Mirna, Sixtos, Amo, Garrette, Montano, Puzon, Rooter, and

Aguilar. Here, plaintiff only speculates that a retaliatory motive drove their alleged behavior,

but he does not explain whether or how defendants had any knowledge of any of plaintiff’s First

Amendment activities, if any. Plaintiff’s threadbare and conclusory assertion that defendants

retaliated against him does not suffice to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim

against them. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1937.

To state a claim that the conditions of imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment

prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, plaintiff must allege a specific individual was

deliberately indifferent to some basic human need such as food, clothing, shelter, medical care or

safety. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303-04 (1991); Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

347 (1981). A prison official is deliberately indifferent when he knows of and disregards a risk

of injury or harm that “is not one that today’s society chooses to tolerate.” See Helling v.

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff has lumped various actions together and attributed them to a group of

defendants. While plaintiff’s allegations might suggest that his conditions of confinement

violated the Eighth Amendment, he has not alleged in specific terms how each named defendant

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 5 of 11
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

was involved. Plaintiff must establish some affirmative link or connection between each

defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Vague and conclusory allegations of

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Accordingly, any Eighth Amendment

conditions of confinement claims are dismissed. 

C. Claim Three 

Plaintiff alleges he injured his foot and ankle while running in place. He claims the nurse

put ice on it, gave plaintiff pain killers, and also gave plaintiff a pass to go the doctor in the

morning. Plaintiff claims he showed the pass to defendant Amo at 7:00 a.m. and he just laughed. 

Plaintiff alleged he had to call the sergeant to be taken to the clinic, as his appointment was for

8:00 a.m., but that he did not get to the clinic until 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff alleges further that his foot

was x-rayed with his shoe still on and that he was told by an unknown correctional officer that he

did not need to see a doctor. Plaintiff claims that his foot still hurts, and he has not seen a doctor. 

To state a claim defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff

must allege acts or omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of and disregarded

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer, 511 U.S.

at 835-37. Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant Amo laughed when plaintiff showed him, at

7:00 AM, his pass for an 8:00 AM appointment, do not show that Amo was deliberately

indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Nor does plaintiff’s allegation that an unknown

correctional officer told plaintiff he did not need to see a doctor establish deliberate indifference. 

The court also notes that neither defendant’s negligence nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with

the treatment he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v.

United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, any Eighth Amendment claims based on deliberate indifference to

medical needs are dismissed. 

////

////

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 6 of 11
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

III. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar,

Montano, and Garrete based on their alleged interference with plaintiff’s outgoing mail and

pursue these claims only, or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to cure the

deficiencies identified herein as to the remaining allegations in the complaint

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified

herein, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint. However, if

plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano,

and Garrete based on their alleged interference with plaintiff’s outgoing mail, then within 30

days he must return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court

will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all remaining claims without

prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. 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.

It 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, 588 F.2d at 743 (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 contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

////

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 7 of 11
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

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). Plaintiff may join

multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). 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). Plaintiff may not change the

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d

at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints). 

 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). 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 Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of

these instructions. 

////

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 8 of 11
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

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). By signing an amended

complaint, plaintiff 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. 

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

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 entire action, including his First

Amendment claims against defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall

be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s supervisorial liability, access to the courts, retaliation, conditions of

confinement and medical care claims, are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of

service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies

identified herein and state cognizable claims. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable First

Amendment claims against defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete for

their alleged interference with plaintiff’s outgoing mail. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order

the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the amended

complaint filed February 16, 2010, six USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on

defendants Perez, Rooter, Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete. Within 30 days of service of

this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 9 of 11
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

10

completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and seven copies of the February 16, 2010

amended complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of

process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants Perez, Rooter,

Sixtos, Aguilar, Montano, and Garrete will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations

within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this

event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order

dismissing his defective claims as identified herein, without prejudice.

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

Dated: July 20, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 10 of 11
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

11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDEL PADILLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0239 FCD EFB P

vs.

ROOTER, et al., 

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

In accordance with the court’s order filed ______________________, plaintiff hereby

elects to:

(1) ______ consent to the dismissal of the supervisor liability, access to the courts,

retaliation, conditions of confinement and medical care claims, without prejudice, and submits

the following documents:

 1 completed summons form

 6 completed forms USM-285 

 7 copies of the February 16, 2010 Amended Complaint

OR

(2) ______ delay serving any defendant and files a second amended complaint in an

attempt to state additional cognizable claims by curing the deficiencies identified by the court. 

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:10-cv-00239-FCD-EFB Document 15 Filed 07/20/10 Page 11 of 11