Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00268/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00268-5/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

Plaintiff filed two amended complaints on June 13 (Doc. 13 and Doc. 14). The 1

court has screened Doc. 14, and has found plaintiff states a claim. Doc. 13 has not been

screened. However, if plaintiff intended Doc. 13 to be the operative pleading, he must so inform

the court so the court can screen that amended complaint. Otherwise, if he chooses to stand on

his amended complaint, the court will strike Doc. 13 from the docket. Plaintiff is advised that if

he files a second amended complaint he must include all information in one document, and not

separate the facts and claims from the form.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS LORENZO ARMENTERO, No. CIV S-07-0268-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JAMES TILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 14),

filed on June 13, 2007.1

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

Case 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on February 9, 2007. This complaint was

dismissed with leave to amend because plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state a

constitutional violation. Plaintiff then filed this first amended complaint on June 13, 2007. 

II. DISCUSSION

In plaintiff’s first amended complaint, he alleges that defendants have instituted a

race-based lockdown at Folsom State Prison which violates his civil rights and that he is

confronted with ethnicity problems which increase the bad conditions of confinement. Plaintiff

claims he was discriminated against because he was the same race as other inmates who were

engaged in violent behavior, and as a result was placed in segregation based on his race. 

According to plaintiff, the repeated lockdowns are contrary to legitimate penological interests,

Case 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

constitute unlawful punishment, and violate his civil rights because they are race based. 

Plaintiff also claims that the repeated lockdowns are interfering with his privilege

to engage in physical education programs. He claims he has health problems and his doctors

have recommend he walk everyday. However, due to lockdowns at the prison, he alleges that he

was in lockdown almost 24 hours in his cell and had only two or three hours of physical

education program every six days, causing him pain and interfering with his medical treatment. 

Finally, plaintiff alleges restricted access to the law library during these repeated

lockdowns. He claims the entire prison population is only permitted access to the library for two

hours, which is insufficient.

As the court stated in its previous order, allegations of lockdowns do not state a

constitutional violation because these do not constitute an “atypical and significant hardship on

the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,

484 (1995). Therefore, plaintiff’s complaints regarding the lockdowns at Folsom State Prison

fail to state a claim. 

Similarly, plaintiff’s claims about restricted access to the law library are

insufficient to state a claim. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977); Bradley

v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) (discussing the right in the context of prison

grievance procedures). This right requires prison officials to “assist inmates in the preparation

and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or

adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.” Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828. The right,

however, only requires that prisoners have the capability of bringing challenges to sentences or

conditions of confinement. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 356-57.

As a jurisdictional requirement flowing from the standing doctrine, the prisoner

must allege an actual injury. See id. at 349. “Actual injury” is prejudice with respect to

contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or present a

Case 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 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

4

claim. See id. Delays in providing legal materials or assistance which result in prejudice are

“not of constitutional significance” if the delay is reasonably related to legitimate penological

purposes. Id. at 362. 

Here, plaintiff fails to state how the limited time the prison population has access

to the law library has deprived him of a constitutional right. Nowhere in his complaint has

plaintiff stated that the lack of access to the law library has caused him any difficulties, other than

being restricted to his cell, and he has made no claim of any actual injury caused by the lack of

access. 

In regards to plaintiff’s claims of lack of exercise, however, the complaint appears

to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If

the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this

claim.

III. CONCLUSION

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the

prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. 

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

id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

Case 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 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

5

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no

amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such

further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file a second amended

complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

DATED: September 13, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00268-JKS-CMK Document 17 Filed 09/14/07 Page 5 of 5