Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00958/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00958-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN APPLEGATE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KHALEL EL SAID,

Defendant.

CASE No. 1:16-cv-0958-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 

6.) Plaintiff’s July 5, 2016, complaint is now before the Court for screening. 

I. Screening Requirement 

The in forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any 

portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if 

the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

II. Pleading Standard 

Section 1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 

Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Case 1:16-cv-00958-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/27/16 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

Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for 

vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 

(1989).

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and 

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state 

law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 

1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

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

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Id. Facial plausibility demands more than the mere 

possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations are 

accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 677-78.

III. Plaintiff’s Allegations

At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an inmate housed at California 

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. He brings this action against a single 

defendant, Khalel El Said, who is named in his individual capacity only. 

Plaintiff’s claims can be fairly summarized as follows:

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff was issued an ADA vest by custody supervisors in 

response to his request for certain ADA accommodations. 

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff was interviewed by Defendant following his filing 

of an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request (“the ADA Request”). Plaintiff appeared 

at the hearing wearing the ADA vest. When Said saw the vest, he directed Plaintiff to 

Case 1:16-cv-00958-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/27/16 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

remove it, saying “Now get the fuck out of here before I have my cops fuck you up and 

give you a real reason to see a doctor.” 

Plaintiff claims this conduct prevented him from receiving care by Said, the harms 

of which are presented in a separate lawsuit. In this action, Plaintiff claims that the 

removal of the vest denied him the protections afforded by it, in violation of California 

Civil Code §51.7 and § 52.1. Plaintiff also claims that Said’s conduct was in retaliation for 

Plaintiff’s filing of the ADA Request as well as numerous grievances previously filed 

against Defendant. 

Plaintiff seeks damages.

IV. Analysis

Plaintiff’s sole federal claim in this action is a First Amendment retaliation claim 

against Defendant. As noted supra, he acknowledges the existence of another case 

related to the December 15, 2015, incident, but does not identify it. He states only that 

the claims in the other case are limited to medical care claims and that they could not be 

brought in a single action because they were unexhausted at the time this case was 

filed. Plaintiff is not opposed to relating this case to the other case. 

The Court has identified two other cases filed against Defendant Khalel El Said

concerning the December 15, 2015, incident: Applegate v. Said, 1:16-cv-0289-JLT (filed 

March 2, 2016 (“the earlier-filed case”)), and Applegate v. CCI, 1:16-cv-1343-MJS (filed 

September 12, 2016 (“the later-filed case”)). In the later-filed case, Plaintiff’s claim 

against Defendant Said appears to be limited to the provision of medical care. However, 

the operative pleading in the earlier-filed case specifically asserts a First Amendment 

retaliation claim against Defendant based on the same conduct at issue here. See

Applegate v. Said, 1:16-cv-0289-JLT, ECF No. 14 at 12-17. It appears therefore that this 

action is subject to dismissal as duplicative of the earlier case. 

Case 1:16-cv-00958-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/27/16 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

V. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause 

within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed as duplicative of Applegate 

v. Said, 1:16-cv-0289-JLT. Plaintiff’s response should be no longer than five pages. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00958-MJS Document 8 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 4