Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02069/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02069-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEON E. MORRIS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2069 GEB DAD P

vs.

TIM VIRGA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis at this time.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is

currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 7
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

the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall

be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the

amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has 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. See 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 where it is based on an

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); 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)). However, 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. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 7
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

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all

doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on August 4, 2010. Before the court had an

opportunity to screen it, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure provide that a party may amend his or her pleading “once as a matter of course at any

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 7
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

time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, the court will

screen plaintiff’s amended complaint and allow the case to proceed in accordance with this order. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff has identified more than fifty defendants. He

asserts numerous claims against prison officials, including denial of access to religious services,

denial of access to mail, denial of access to a notary public, denial of access to courts, unsanitary

food conditions, failure to protect/inciting other inmates to harm him, deliberate indifference to

his medical needs while he was on a hunger strike, deliberate indifference to his medical needs

with respect to a reduction in his pain medication, falsification of medical records, interference

with his ability to attend mental health care programs, unconstitutional double-celling,

retaliation, and so on. Plaintiff’s claims date back to conduct alleged to have occurred as far

back as 2007.

DISCUSSION

This court will not allow plaintiff to proceed in this action against more than fifty

named defendants when his claims against those defendants are wholly unrelated. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 18(a). Plaintiff may pursue multiple claims against a single defendant, but he may not

pursue unrelated claims against different defendants. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605 (7th

Cir. 2007). In George, a state prisoner sued twenty-four persons who had some role in his

confinement and alleged numerous violations of his constitutional rights. In reviewing plaintiff’s

“mishmash complaint,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals explained:

The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): “A

party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as

alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an

opposing party.” Thus multiple claims against a single party are

fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against

different defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent

the sort of morass that this 50-claim, 24-defendant suit produced

but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees - for

the Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of

frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without

prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). George was

trying not only to save money but also to dodge that rule. He

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 4 of 7
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

hoped that if even 1 of his 50 claims were deemed non-frivolous,

he would receive no “strikes” at all, as opposed to the 49 that

would result from making 49 frivolous claims in a batch of 50

suits.

Id. at 607. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both

commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied); Rowe v. Baughman, No. CIV S10-2843 EFB P, 2011 WL 720072 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011) (relying on the decision in 

Smith and dismissing complaint with leave to amend due to plaintiff’s failure to comply with

Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Poye v. California, No. CIV S-10-3221 GGH,

2011 WL 587589 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (same). 

The undersigned notes that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

California has denied plaintiff in forma pauperis status because he has “on three prior occasions,

while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United

States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted.” See Morris v. Woodford, No. C 07-4198 MJJ (PR), 2008

WL 906560, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2008). The undersigned will grant plaintiff in forma

pauperis status in this case because his complaint includes plausible allegations that appear to fall

within the “imminent danger” exception to the three-strikes rule. See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] prisoner who alleges that prison officials continue with

a practice that has injured him or others similarly situated in the past will satisfy the ‘ongoing

danger’ standard and meet the imminence prong of the three-strikes exception.”). However, the

court will not allow plaintiff to bundle dozens of potential actions into one. 

If plaintiff elects to proceed with this action by filing a second amended

complaint, he must comply with Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In addition,

although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, plaintiff’s second amended

complaint must give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which

defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. 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 v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167

(9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make

his second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the prior 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. 

OTHER MATTERS

Also pending before the court are two motions for appointment of counsel from

plaintiff. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require

counsel to represent indigent prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court,

490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain exceptional circumstances, the district court may request

the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990).

The test for exceptional circumstances requires the court to evaluate the plaintiff’s

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in

light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328,

1331 (9th Cir. 1986); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Circumstances

common to most prisoners, such as lack of legal education and limited law library access, do not

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 6 of 7
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

7

establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant a request for voluntary assistance of

counsel. In the present case, the court does not find the required exceptional circumstances. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s August 4, 2010 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No.

2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s September 3, 2010 application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.

No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.

3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

4. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 9) is dismissed.

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

second amended complaint that complies with this order as well as the requirements of the Civil

Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second

amended complaint must 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 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action.

7. Plaintiff’s motions for appointment of counsel (Doc. Nos. 3 & 8) are denied.

DATED: March 16, 2011.

DAD:9

morr2069.14am

Case 2:10-cv-02069-TLN-DAD Document 11 Filed 03/17/11 Page 7 of 7