Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02874/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02874-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES NEUMANN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2874 MCE EFB P

vs.

MARTIN VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An initial partial payment of $.61 is assessed in accordance with section 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited

to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall

forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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 court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it

does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. To proceed, plaintiff must file an

amended complaint.

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

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).

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 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

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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

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).

A district court must construe 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).

Plaintiff alleges that Cry, Higgins, Silbough, Smith, Tyler and Veal have policies and

practices that discriminate against plaintiff in access to education and work programs based on

his mental health condition, they treat him differently from other mentally ill prisoners, and they

expelled him from a mental health program because he refused to volunteer for a different but

similar program.

It is unclear on what grounds plaintiff is attempting to sue. One can only guess as to the

intended cause of action, whether it be for a deprivation of equal protection, an eighth

Amendment claim over withheld medical treatment, retaliation or some other type of claim. A

prisoner who claims his Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment has

been violated by inadequate medical care must allege that on a specific day an identified state

actor with individual responsibility for obtaining or providing medical care knew the prisoner

faced substantial risk of serious harm but deliberately disregarded the risk by failing to take

reasonable measures resulting in avoidable persistent severe pain or avoidable substantial

personal injury. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

837 (1994).

To state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must allege that on a specified date an individual

state actor took adverse action against plaintiff for his engagement in a constitutionally protected

activity and the adverse action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of his rights and did not reasonably

advance a legitimate penological goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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

2005); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985).

Equal protection is a command that persons similarly situated be treated alike by the state

absence some justification for the disparate treatment. City of Cleburne, Tex. v . Cleburne Living

Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Therefore, to state a claim for the violation of equal

protection, plaintiff must allege that a defendant intentionally discriminated against him based

upon some immutable characteristic. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (1998). 

Discrimination based on characteristics other than race, alienage, national origin and sex must be

rationally related to a legitimate state interest. City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 440.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), but does not

specify under which title he intends to proceed. Because he alleges discrimination in access to

programs, the court deems them to be brought under Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 - 12164, which

addresses discrimination with respect to public benefits, services, and programs. As Title II of

the ADA provides a remedy against “public entities,” plaintiff may maintain an action

thereunder against the warden for injunctive relief. See Miranda B. v. Kitzhaber, 328 F.3d 1181,

1187 (9th Cir. 2003). To state a claim, plaintiff must allege: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is eligible,

with or without accommodation, to receive or participate in a public entity’s services, programs

or activities; (3) the entity excluded him from participation in or denied him the benefits of its

services, programs or activities, or otherwise discriminated against him; and (4) the exclusion,

denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability. 

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. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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

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

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

Plaintiff is admonished that 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). Plaintiff is also admonished that by signing an amended

complaint he further certifies that 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 action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350 and shall make an initial payment of

$.61. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an

original and one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to

this case and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will

result in a recommendation this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 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

an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process

by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: January 17, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02874-MCE -EFB Document 8 Filed 01/18/07 Page 6 of 6