Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01142/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01142-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLEKSANDR KASIANOV,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARTIN GAMBOA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-CV-1142-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, ECF No. 10. 

 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 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 

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 16 Filed 08/15/23 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

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, who was incarcerated at the time he filed this action but who has since 

been released, names the following as defendants: (1) Martin Gamboa, the warden of Avenal 

State Prison (ASP); and (2) Robert Burton, the warden of the Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). 

See ECF No. 10, pgs. 1, 2, 3. These same defendants were named in Plaintiff’s original 

complaint. See ECF No. 1. In the currently pending first amended complaint, Plaintiff adds the 

following new individuals as defendants: (1) McGarity, K-2 unit officer at DVI; (2) M. Catania, 

staff response assistant at DVI; (3) M. Costa, appeals coordinator/interviewer at DVI; (4) K.D. 

Johnson, associate warden at DVI; (5) J. Flores, appeals coordinator at DVI; (6) E. Casillas, 

correctional counselor at DVI; (7) F. Silveira, second level appeals coordinator at DVI; (8) R. 

Jimenez, D-420 counselor at ASP; (9) “DVI Mail Room Employee #6”; (10) “all DVI Employees 

of Mail Room Staffs”; (11) K. Brainard; (12) D. Groves; (13) T. Mills; (14) M.J. Contreras; (15) 

S. Adaza; (16) A. Shimmin; (17) M.E. Spearman; (18) Sinkovich; amd (19) “all ASP Employees 

of Mail Room Staffs.” See ECF No. 10, pgs. 2, 4. 

 As with the original complaint, Plaintiff alleges various claims related to 

interference with his legal mail at ASP and DVI. See id. at 5-9. Throughout his complaint, 

Plaintiff refers generally to “prison staff” and does not mention either defendant specifically. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 16 Filed 08/15/23 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

II. DISCUSSION

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, like the original 

complaint, fails to state any cognizable claims because Plaintiff has failed to link to any named 

defendant the alleged constitutional violations associated with handling of his mail. 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t 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). 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). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Plaintiff will be provided one additional opportunity to cure the defect in his 

amended complaint by filing a second amended complaint which clearly explains how each 

named defendant was involved in the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff is 

cautioned that if he fails to do so, the Court will recommend dismissal of the action without 

further leave to amend for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 

amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to 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 is 

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 16 Filed 08/15/23 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

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 

Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 

Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 

with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date

of service of this order.

Dated: August 15, 2023 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-01142-DAD-DMC Document 16 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 4