Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01484-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff, No. 1:06-cv-01484 ALA P

vs.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

KIRBY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

____________________________/

Plaintiff Ronald Adams is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 3, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended

complaint. Review of that complaint finds that defendants are employees of a governmental

entity. 

I

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), when the litigant is a prisoner, the court must screen

complaints brought against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. The court must dismiss the complaint if the claims contained in it, even when read

broadly, are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(A)(b). A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this court] must accept

Case 1:06-cv-01484-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 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

27

28

2

[plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). 

Plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for relief based on retaliation and cruel and unusual

punishment with respect to plaintiff’s claims that defendant Glenn forced plaintiff to stand

outside, in the nude, in freezing weather and that defendant Phillips forced plaintiff to sleep on a

wet moldy mattress. However, plaintiff’s claim concerning his prison transfer does not state a

colorable claim for relief. 

II

Plaintiff has alleged that defendants T. Barrier, E.T. Borrero, D.L. Johnson, P.L. Vasquez

and J. Short retaliated against plaintiff for making informal complaints to prison officials by

transferring plaintiff to another prison. Second Amended Complaint at 20.

Inmates do not have a constitutional right to be housed at a particular facility or

institution or to be transferred, or not transferred, from one facility or institution to another. 

Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983). However, allegations of retaliation against a

prisoner's First Amendment rights to speech may support a § 1983 claim. Rhodes v. Robinson,

408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some

adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that

such action (4) chilled the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did

not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Id. at 567-68; see also Soranno's Gasco,

Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that a plaintiff must plead facts

which suggest “that the protected conduct was a ‘substantial’ or ‘motivating’ factor in the

defendant's decision”) (citation omitted). 

Case 1:06-cv-01484-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 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

27

28

3

Plaintiff’s complaint is at times difficult to comprehend. Plaintiff does discuss in great

detail the sequence of events that lead to his transfer. However, plaintiff does not offer any

evidence connecting his prison transfer with his informal complaints. The closest plaintiff

comes to supporting the allegation that he was transferred as a result of these informal

complaints is the conclusion that, “defendant J. Short and defendant Borrero must have

conspired.” Second Amended Complaint at 18. That statement is too conclusory to support the

allegation that plaintiff was transferred to a different prison in retaliation for complaining about

prison guards. 

III

Therefore, plaintiff may proceed against defendants Phillips and Glenn. To proceed

against anyone else plaintiff must file a third 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).

Case 1:06-cv-01484-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 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

27

28

4

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

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 a plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

The court (and any 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. 

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.

Case 1:06-cv-01484-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 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

27

28

5

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 15 CAL.

ADMIN. CODE § 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 further admonished that by signing an

amended complaint he 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 action.

IV

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Kirby, P.L. Vasquez, James E. Tilton, Harris, D.

Smith, T. Mosley, L.S. McEwen, C.L. Flood, T. Barrier, M. Tews, Ms. Hayes, Mrs. Firsich, Mr.

Cannon. E.T. Borrero, S. Cheny, Assistant Warden and D.L. Johnson are dismissed for the

reasons discussed above, with leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty-five (35)

days from the date of this order. Failure to file a third amended complaint will result in

defendants Kirby, P.L. Vasquez, James E. Tilton, Harris, D. Smith, T. Mosley, L.S. McEwen,

C.L. Flood, T. Barrier, M. Tews, Ms. Hayes, Mrs. Firsich, Mr. Cannon. E.T. Borrero, S. Cheny,

Assistant Warden and D.L. Johnson being dismissed from this action. Plaintiff would then

proceed against defendants Phillips and Glenn; and

2. Upon filing a third amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed

therefore, the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the

defendants.

/////

DATED: February 26, 2008

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:06-cv-01484-SMS Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 Page 5 of 5