Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01616/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01616-4/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Sammy R. Quair, Sr., (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

October 16, 2014. (ECF No. 1). On June 8, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with 

leave to amend. (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on December 26, 2015, is 

currently before the Court for screening. (ECF No. 26). 

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

SAMMY R. QUAIR, SR.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s 

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. 

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant 

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated. However, Plaintiff’s amended complaint concerns events 

that occurred while he was a pretrial detainee in the Kings County Jail. Plaintiff names the following 

defendants: (1) Commander Vento; (2) Senior Deputy Day; and (3) Kings County Board of 

Supervisors. 

Claim One

In Claim One, Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment right of free speech and his 

Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection were violated. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that in 

Exhibit A to his complaint he attempts to plead with Defendants Day and Vento regarding his need for 

pro se privileges and incentives to meet a court-ordered deadline in Case No. 2:11-cv-02294-KJNKJN and was denied. In Exhibit D, Plaintiff alleges that both lawsuits “were injured and harmed, 

finally dismissed.” (ECF No. 26, p. 3). Plaintiff asserts that he went to a settlement conference in 

which the dismissals were used against him. Plaintiff claims that this had an adverse effect on his 

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

bargaining. It reportedly was said over and over that both cases died twice on the operating table. 

Plaintiff alleges that this has had an impact on Plaintiff’s subconscious. Plaintiff alleges that having to 

be charged $350 to initiate this lawsuit to get back what was lost in five years is almost irreparable. 

Plaintiff claims that “[a]fter injury, harm, surgery, stitches, pain medication, psychological harm, 

counseling, church etc. even after recovery, nothing is ever the same.” (ECF No. 26, p. 4).

Claim 2

In Claim Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of his due process rights. Specifically, Plaintiff 

alleges that in Exhibit B to his complaint he submits another grievance in the attempt to obtain pro se 

privileges and incentives. Plaintiff did not attach the 15-page summary judgment opposition because 

it came out blank. Plaintiff takes Defendant Vento’s reply into consideration about getting a court 

order. Plaintiff further alleges that in Exhibit C to his complaint Plaintiff received a court order from 

Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, which Defendant Vento disobeyed. 

Plaintiff contends that $700 was lost in both actions and another $900 was lost in the appeals 

court for both lawsuits. Plaintiff claims five years of printing, copies, postage, legal assistant fees and 

hours of stress, frustration, harassment, arguments and sleep deprivation, and he lost it all due to Kings 

County in contempt of court. 

As relief, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $75,000. 

III. Deficiencies of Complaint

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and 

fails to state a cognizable claim upon which relief can be granted. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he 

will granted a final opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies. The Court 

provides the following pleading and legal standards that appear applicable to his claims. 

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[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 (citation omitted). 

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

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 6
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

27

28

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). 

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556–557.

Although Plaintiff’s complaint is short, it is not a plain statement of his claims. The amended 

complaint lacks basic facts, including what happened, when it happened and who was involved. 

Plaintiff’s reference to his attached exhibits is not sufficient. The Court will not sift through the 

exhibits in an attempt to identify a cognizable claim. 

B. Linkage Requirement

Plaintiff has failed to link Defendant Kings County Board of Supervisors to any of his claims. 

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. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See Monell v. 

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 

362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ 

another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally 

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

C. Grievances

Plaintiff appears to bring suit against Defendants Day and Vento based on the denial of his 

grievances. Plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against staff relating to their involvement in the 

administrative review of his prisoner grievances. The existence of an inmate grievance or appeals 

process does not create a protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was 

denied a particular result or that the process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th 

Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under section 1983, 

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Plaintiff must demonstrate personal involvement in the underlying violation of his rights, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 677; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002), and liability may not be based 

merely on Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the administrative process or a decision on a grievance or

appeal, Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860; Mann, 855 F.2d at 640.

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendants Day and Vento based on their 

responses to his inmate grievances. 

D. Access to Courts

In Claims One and Two, Plaintiff appears to assert that he was denied access to the courts by 

prison officials’ failure to afford him pro se privileges. Plaintiff claims that this failure resulted in the 

dismissal of his two cases: 2:11-cv-02293-CKD and 2:11-cv-02294-KJN.

Although inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts, Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009), 

to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires 

“actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing litigation,” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. 

Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks 

omitted), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 

2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

Plaintiff claims jail officials’ interference resulted in dismissal of his cases, identified as 2:11-

cv-02293-CKD and 2:11-cv-02294-KJN. However, a review of court records reveals that these cases 

have not been dismissed.1 Rather, they have been consolidated into a single action, 2:11-cv-2293 

JAM CKD P, and this consolidated action is open and active. Therefore, Plaintiff cannot state a 

cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts in the absence of any actual injury. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a 

cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies 

to the extent he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 

1

The Court may take judicial notice of court records in another case. United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 2004).

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 5 of 6
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

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555

(citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims 

in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local 

Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01616-AWI-BAM Document 32 Filed 11/16/16 Page 6 of 6