Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02206/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-02206-3/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

WILLIAM ROUSER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-2206 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil 

rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s amended 

complaint as the court is required to do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed 

plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint 

on April 8, 2022. Plaintiff presents four claims in his second amended complaint.

In his first claim, plaintiff alleges he receives less time to participate in prison programs 

such as group therapy as a result of discrimination based upon mental illness. There are two main 

problems with this claim. First, the allegations are vague as to what actions were taken by which 

defendants which resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff asserts several defendants 

denied him programing time without describing how so. It is not sufficient to say several 

defendants denied plaintiff programming. Plaintiff must identify how in particular each 

defendant denied plaintiff programming and when those actions occurred.

Case 2:21-cv-02206-DAD-CKD Document 21 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 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

2

Also, plaintiff fails to point to anything suggesting he is being unlawfully discriminated 

against because of a mental illness. To plead an equal protection violation, plaintiff must allege 

he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly-situated and that the 

unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Freeman v. Arpaio, 

125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997). Generally speaking, it is lawful to treat inmates with mental 

illness differently in some respects than inmates who do not have mental illness as long as 

legitimate penological interests are furthered. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). 

In claim II, plaintiff asserts that he is frequently served breakfast more than 14 hours after 

his previous meal in violation of the California Penal Code. Plaintiff does not state a claim for 

relief under California law as he had not pled compliance with the California Tort Claims Act. 

See Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 

(9th Cir. 1995). Complaints must present facts demonstrating compliance, rather than simply 

conclusions suggesting as much. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 (2007). 

Further, plaintiff has not stated a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment for cruel and 

unusual punishment based upon delay of breakfast. No actionable claim is stated in plaintiff’s 

claim II.

Claim III concerns falsification of documents. Plaintiff asserts this subjected him to cruel 

and unusual punishment, but he pleads no facts suggesting as much.

Finally, in claim IV, plaintiff asserts certain conditions of confinement violate the Eighth 

Amendment. However, the allegations presented by plaintiff do not amount to cruel and unusual 

punishment. 

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s second amended complaint must be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim. The court will give plaintiff one more opportunity to state a claim upon 

which plaintiff might proceed. The court recommends that plaintiff focus on his first claim as 

that appears to be the only claim where plaintiff might state a claim upon which he might 

proceed. In order to state a claim against a particular defendant for violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiff must point to facts indicating what 

/////

Case 2:21-cv-02206-DAD-CKD Document 21 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 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

3

specific actions were taken by that defendant, that plaintiff suffered injury as a result of those 

actions and the actions were the result of intentional discrimination.

As plaintiff already knows, the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff’s third amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The third amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint.” Failure 

to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: October 11, 2022

1

rous2206.14(3)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-02206-DAD-CKD Document 21 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 3