Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00970/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00970-1/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAN RAPHAEL ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-00970-SKO (PC)

FIRST SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT FOR FAIULRE TO STATE A 

CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT ALLEN, 

WITH LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

First Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Sean Raphael Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil action in 

Tuolumne County Superior Court on March 8, 2013. Plaintiff seeks relief for the violation of his 

federal constitutional rights, for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000), and for violation of California law. Defendant Allen filed 

a notice of removal on June 21, 2013. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

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. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), 

(2). 

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 4
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

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[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, 129 S.Ct. 1937 

(2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences,” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572

F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Under section 1983, which provides a cause of action for the alleged violation of Plaintiff’s 

federal constitutional rights, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). Prisoners 

proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and 

to have any doubt resolved in their favor, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(citations omitted), but nevertheless, the mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting the 

plausibility standard, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II. Discussion

A. Claims Against Defendant Allen

Defendant C. Allen is Chief Physician and Surgeon at Sierra Conservation Center in 

Jamestown, California, where Plaintiff is incarcerated. Plaintiff is Muslim and he objects to 

female medical staff viewing his unclothed body. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Allen granted 

his inmate appeal regarding his request to be seen by male medical practitioners. However, in a 

subsequent interview, Defendant Allen told Lieutenant Bick that the appeal was limited to a onetime event, because the medical care at issue already occurred and the appeal response did not 

apply to future medical care.

Although Plaintiff alleges a myriad of state and federal claims against Defendant Allen, 

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts which support a claim for relief against Defendant 

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Allen. As an initial matter, the existence of an inmate appeals process does not create any 

substantive rights such that Plaintiff may seek to impose liability on Defendant Allen for his 

actions in reviewing and responding to the appeal. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 

2003); citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

With respect to Plaintiff’s federal claims, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts 

showing that Defendant Allen acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012), and/or that Defendant Allen 

substantially burden the practice of Plaintiff’s religion, Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & 

Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884-85 (9th Cir. 

2008).

Similarly, Plaintiff’s allegations do not support any claims for relief under state law against 

Defendant Allen.1 Defendant Allen was not directly involved in the underlying events giving rise 

to Plaintiff’s claims and his participation in resolving Plaintiff’s inmate appeal does not provide 

any basis for imposition of liability against him under California law.

III. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against 

Defendant Allen. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended 

complaint, if he believes in good faith he can state a claim against Defendant Allen. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). If Plaintiff amends, he may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George 

v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

Defendant Allen did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights, and liability may not be 

imposed on Defendant Allen under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

676-77; Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 

 

1

Plaintiff alleges state law claims for medical malpractice, sexual harassment, and intentional infliction of emotional 

distress.

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 4
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

(2012). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level. . ,” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted), and tangential 

involvement in the underlying violation does not suffice to support a claim for relief, e.g., Crowley 

v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 

726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013).

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim 

against Defendant Allen;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order,

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Allen will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a 

claim and this action will be remanded to Tuolumne County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00970-SKO Document 8 Filed 04/18/14 Page 4 of 4