Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02656/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02656-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

VINCENT J. BIAGAS, SR., No. 2:13-cv-2656-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

T. VIRGA, 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 amended complaint, and several

motions plaintiff has filed for production and inspection of documents (Docs. 21, 26, 27), and

temporary restraining order (Doc. 20). Plaintiff’s amended complaint is addressed herein. 

Plaintiff’s other motions will be addressed by separate order if his amended complaint survives

screening. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. 

As the court previously explained, 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. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion

1

Case 2:13-cv-02656-KJM-DMC Document 28 Filed 11/03/15 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

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. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s claims remain unclear in his amended complaint. It does not appear

that he has limited the number of defendants to those related by the same claims, as he continues

to name various correctional officers, supervisors, and wardens as defendants to this action. As

with his original complaint, the amended complaint still fails to allege any specific facts, but

appears to allege various violations ranging from Due Process, medical treatment, obstruction of

justice, to failure to protect and inappropriate behavior by the correctional staff. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s amended complaint suffers from the same defects as his original

complaint. Specifically, plaintiff fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure to state his claim simply, concisely, and directly. He continues to offer vague

allegations without alleging any factual support for claims. Plaintiff does not plead with

sufficient clarity any of his possible claims. 

/ / / 

2

Case 2:13-cv-02656-KJM-DMC Document 28 Filed 11/03/15 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

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

that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d

646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was provided specific direction on what was required to state

a claim as to each of the possible claims the court could decipher from his original complaint. 

However, he has failed to follow the court’s direction and cure the defects in his complaint by

either limiting the claims to those related, or by alleging sufficient factual allegations as to each

named defendant. It therefore appears that plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to allege

sufficient facts to state a claim, and further leave to amend is unlikely to help.

III. CONCLUSION

Because it does not appear possible that plaintiff can cure the deficiencies

identified by the court by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to further leave to

amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this

order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is warned that

failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined

above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule

110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 2, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-02656-KJM-DMC Document 28 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 3