Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00412-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARLITZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00412-SAB (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT, WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND

(ECF No. 15)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

Plaintiff Eric Charles Rodney K’napp (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed

this civil rights action on March 2, 2009. On July 28, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint

and dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 10.) A first amended complaint was filed on October

13, 2009. (ECF No. 15.) 

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 has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

In determining whether a complaint states a claim, the Court looks to the pleading standard

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 1 of 9
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

“[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ but it

demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 554, 555 (2007)). 

Under section 1983, 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 Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). “[A] complaint [that]

pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the line

between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual allegations

contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 678. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported bymere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(“CDCR”) and is incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”) in Jamestown, California. 

Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants Roderick Hickman, Jeanne Woodford, James Tilton,

Matthew Cate, Kenneth Hurdle, Nola Grannis, James Yates, Does 1-3, Hitchcock, Marks, Murphy,

Nelson, Parks, Shannon, Fisher, Puig, Arlitz, Prince, Collins, Delk, Gellerson, and Negrete , alleging

violations of various constitutional rights.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains multiple incidents that occur over a period of several years,

against multiple defendants, and appear to be unrelated. The Court will not summarize all of the

allegations in the first amended complaint since it entails a variety of apparently unrelated claims

that would not present a cohesive basis for analysis.

For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file an amended

2

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 2 of 9
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

complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. In the paragraphs that follow,

the Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to the claims. Plaintiff

should carefully review the standards and amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith,

are cognizable. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 18 and 20

A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same

defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants

to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of

transactions” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” 

However, unrelated claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. 

See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only intended to avoid

confusion that arises out of bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing

fees for their lawsuits and prevent prisoners from circumventing the three strikes rule under the

Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint contains multiple incidents that occur over a period of

several years involving claims of violations of his constitutional rights Plaintiff attempts to bring

suit against twenty-four defendants. Plaintiff is advised that his claims do not arise out of the same

“transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions.” The incidents described do not involve common

questions of fact or law. Many incidents occurred in different years and involved different

Defendants. The facts necessary to prove these claims are unique. Plaintiff is not permitted to raise

all his claims in a single action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) simply because all

the incidents occurred by prison officials in the same prison. 

The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his second amended complaint

must be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a single claim against a single

defendant. Plaintiff may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same

3

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 3 of 9
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

defendant under Rule 18. Plaintiff may also add any additional claims against other defendants if

those claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions as his original

claim. Plaintiff is advised that a claim does not arise from a common transaction, occurrence, or

series of transactions merelybecause both claims involve discrimination. Anyattempt to join claims

that are not permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will result in those claims being

dismissed as improperly joined. 

B. Rule 8

The Court advises Plaintiff of the following requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure regarding the general formatting of his complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(d)(1). A party must state its claims or defenses in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as

practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). 

“[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a

separate count.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). Although Plaintiff does state his claims in

separate counts, each count contains multiple unrelated allegations. 

The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Because Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with Rule 8(a), the Court declines to expend its

already taxed resources with attempting to sort out his claims. Plaintiff must submit a complaint to

the Court that meets the requirements of Rule 8.

C. Legal Standards

1. First Amendment Retaliation Claim

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to petition

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

4

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 4 of 9
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

the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269

(9th Cir. 2009).

2. Eighth Amendment Claim–Failure to Protect

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Although prison conditions maybe restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 832-33, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Prison officials have

a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833;

Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). The failure of prison officials to protect

inmates from attacks by other inmates may rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation where

prison officials know of and disregard a substantial risk of serious harm to the plaintiff. E.g.,

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040. 

3. Eighth Amendment Claim–Deliberate Indifference

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must

show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th

Cir. 2006) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 295 (1976)) (quotation marks

omitted). The two-part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show: (1) a serious

medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further

significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain; and (2) the defendant’s response

to the need was deliberately indifferent. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096 (quotation marks and citation

omitted). Deliberate indifference is shown by a purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s

pain or possible medical need, and harm caused by the indifference. Id. (citation and quotation

marks omitted). Neithermedical malpractice nor isolated incidents of neglect will support an Eighth

Amendment claim, Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990), and where a prisoner is alleging a delay

5

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 5 of 9
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

in receiving medical treatment, the delay must have led to further harm in order for the prisoner to

make a claim of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, Berry v. Bunnell, 39 F.3d 1056,

1057 (9th Cir. 1994); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other

grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

4. American With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act

Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the RA “prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.” 

Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II provides that “no qualified

individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or

be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to

discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Title II of the ADA applies to inmates within

state prisons. Pa. Dept. of Corr v. Yeskey, 118 S. Ct. 1952, 1955 (1998); see also Simmons v.

Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 2010). To establish a violation of Title II of the

ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was

“excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs, or

activities, or was otherwise discriminated against bythe public entity;” and (3) such exclusion, denial

of benefits, or discrimination was because of his disability. Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1021 (citations

omitted). “The ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for

disability.” Id.

“To state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege ‘(1) he is an individual

with a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefit; (3) he was denied the benefits

of the program solely by reason of his disability; and (4) the program receives federal financial

assistance.’” O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d at 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Duvall

v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001).

5. First Amendment–Access to Court

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Phillips v. Hust , 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). The right

of access to the courts is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the inmate wishes to present,

and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis, 518 U.S.

6

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 6 of 9
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

at 354. To bring a claim, the plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury by being shut out of court. 

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Phillips,

588 F.3d at 655.

6. Property Deprivation

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of property without due

process of law, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974), and prisoners have

a protected interest in their personal property, Hansen v. May, 502 F.2d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 1974). 

However, while an authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due

Process Clause, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13, 104 S.Ct. 3194 (1984) (citing Logan

v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 435-36, 102 S.Ct. 1148 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d

1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985), “[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state

employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.”

Hudson, 468 U.S. at 533.1

7. Supervisory or Executive-Level Personnel

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons

v. Navajo Cnty., Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d

1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not

be imposed on supervisory personnel under the theory of respondeat superior, as each defendant is

only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Ewing, 588

F.3d at 1235. Supervisors may only be held liable if they “participated in or directed the violations,

or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567

F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1182

California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816-17 (9th

1

Cir. 1994) (citing Cal. Gov’t Code §§810-895).

7

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 7 of 9
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

(9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997). 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint does not state a cognizable claim for relief for

a violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff 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) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

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

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused

a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 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). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc.,

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must

be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed October 13, 2009, is dismissed for failure

to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

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

amended complaint that is no less than twenty-five (25) pages; and

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

8

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 8 of 9
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

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 10, 2013 

i1eed4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9

Case 1:09-cv-00412-SAB Document 32 Filed 04/11/13 Page 9 of 9