Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00386-4/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

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

DAVID FUENTES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-0386 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 

amended complaint is before the court. As discussed below, plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

dismissed with leave to amend. 

Screening Standards

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 8
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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

The Civil Rights Act

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the 

facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal 

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 2 of 8
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

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 

(9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff’s Verified Amended Complaint

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is a duplicate of his original complaint,1 except in two 

ways: First, plaintiff added an injury: “my skin and brain appear to be damaged by the 

chemicals, my skin is damaged and my brain.” (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Second, plaintiff supplied 

over 100 pages of exhibits, including photos of the alleged injuries to his skin. (ECF No. 11 at 7 -

10.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff’s amended complaint again fails to include specific charging allegations as to 

each named defendant, referring only to “Sergeant, Counselor, Psychiatrist.” (ECF No. 11 at 3; 

see also ECF No. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff fails to allege specific facts showing that each named 

defendant knew plaintiff’s safety was at substantial risk yet failed to take reasonable measures to 

stop the harm.

2

 Indeed, plaintiff fails to set forth specific facts as to how and when plaintiff 

1

 Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to protect plaintiff from assault by other inmates, based 

on the following. While he was housed at Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), plaintiff was 

“tortured with intent to kill by several inmates,” who “raped, sexually humiliated, stabbed with 

metal pick and injected [plaintiff] all over his body with chemicals.” (ECF No. 11 at 3; see also

ECF No. 1 at 3.) Three inmates gave plaintiff injections on a regular basis, and the injections 

rendered plaintiff unconscious for hours and took place at bedtime. Plaintiff “brought up all these 

issues to the Sergeant, Counselor, Psychiatrist for over a year and they didn’t seem to care, 

nothing was done.” (Id.) Plaintiff shared these traumatic experiences with close family members, 

fellow officers and friends, but given the failure of correctional management to protect plaintiff, 

he “decided to keep it to [himself] until [his] release.” (Id.) Upon his release in March of 2020, 

plaintiff began looking for mental and physical health assistance. Plaintiff now suffers posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and insomnia, and has physical scars from the chemical 

injections. Plaintiff seeks money damages. Plaintiff names as defendants Mr. Manning, 

Sergeant, and Ms. Kissel, Counselor, both employed at MCSP.

2

 ‘‘The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are 

subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.’’ Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) 

(citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993). Prison officials have a duty ‘‘to take 

reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of inmates, which has been interpreted to include a 

duty to protect prisoners.’’ Labatad v. Corrections Corp. of America, 714 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th

Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). 

 To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must “show that the officials acted with 

deliberate indifference to threat of serious harm or injury to an inmate.’’ Labatad, 714 F.3d at 

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 3 of 8
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

informed each defendant of the harm, and how each defendant failed to act to protect plaintiff. It 

is also unclear whether plaintiff was housed with the three inmates at different times, or whether 

plaintiff was housed in a dorm setting. Plaintiff must provide facts showing what Sgt. Manning 

did or did not do that violated plaintiff’s rights, and plaintiff must do the same for defendant 

Kissel. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted leave to provide the required charging allegations.

Finally, plaintiff provided even more exhibits. It is unclear what purpose such exhibits 

serve as many are not obviously related to plaintiff’s claims. With respect to exhibits, while they 

are permissible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice 

pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff is advised that it is not the duty of the court to look 

through all exhibits to determine whether he has claims cognizable under § 1983. Rather, the 

court looks to the factual allegations contained in the amended complaint to determine whether

plaintiff stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint so vague and conclusory 

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for 

relief. The court determines that the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain 

statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible 

pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 

1160 (citing Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). This involves 

both objective and subjective components. First, the alleged deprivation must be ‘’sufficiently 

serious’’ and, where a failure to prevent harm is alleged, “the inmate must show that he is 

incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.’’ Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 

(quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981)). Second, subjectively, the prison 

official must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.’’ Id. at 837; 

Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). A prison official must ‘‘be 

aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm 

exists, and . . . must also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. Liability may follow only 

if a prison official ‘‘knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that 

risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.’’ Id. at 847. 

 The question under the Eighth Amendment is whether prison officials, acting with deliberate 

indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial “risk of serious damage to his future 

health . . . .’’ Farmer, 511 U.S. at 843 (citing Helling, 509 U.S. at 35). The Supreme Court has 

explained that ‘‘deliberate indifference entails something more than mere negligence . . . [but] 

something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with the knowledge 

that harm will result.’’ Id. at 835. 

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 4 of 8
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

succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which each defendant engaged in that 

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave 

to file a second amended complaint.

Leave to Amend

If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which 

he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., West, 487 

U.S. at 48. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is 

involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). In other words, plaintiff must provide facts 

showing what Sgt. Manning did or did not do that violated plaintiff’s rights, and plaintiff must do 

the same for defendant Kissel. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is 

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague 

and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. 

Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

A district court must construe a 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, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. While detailed factual allegations are 

not required, “[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 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must provide “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556 

U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570).

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility 

standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for 

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. 

Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 5 of 8
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

6

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and 

plausibility of entitlement to relief.

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions 

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are 

not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, 

as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v.

County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 

omitted)). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original pleading no longer 

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Finally, plaintiff is not required to provide exhibits. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original of the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended 

complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second 

Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 

dismissal of this action.

////

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 6 of 8
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

7

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 

complaint by a prisoner.

Dated: November 1, 2023

/fuen0386.14amd

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 7 of 8
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FUENTES, SR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-0386 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order

filed______________.

_____________ Second Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-00386-CSK Document 12 Filed 11/01/23 Page 8 of 8