Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01830/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01830-2/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

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-1830 KJN P

vs.

T. KIMURA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis with

a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 13, 2009, plaintiff consented

to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Plaintiff’s March

26, 2010 amended complaint is now before the court.

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 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 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

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 when 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)). 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.” Id. However,

“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and internal

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept

as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

In plaintiff’s original complaint, plaintiff challenged mental health care at High

Desert State Prison. In his amended complaint (“AC”), however, plaintiff transformed his

pleading into a challenge to mental health care provided over years of incarceration in at least

two different prisons.

First, plaintiff is advised that he must have exhausted his claims through the third

level prior to filing the instant action. The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”)

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

 The Director’s Level Decision issued by T. Kimura contains Log No. DVI-08-0570 1

(AC at 19), but refers to the same 51-08-11013 number included in the summary of appeals that

references DVI-08-1570. (AC at 13.) The second level grievance and response also recite DVI08-1570, so the court adopts this number as the actual grievance number for this appeal. (AC at

15; 23.)

3

amended 42 U.S.C. § 1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison

conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail,

prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are

exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Exhaustion in prisoner cases covered by § 1997e(a) is

mandatory. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002). Exhaustion is a prerequisite for all

prisoner suits regarding the conditions of their confinement, whether they involve general

circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other

wrong. Porter, 534 U.S. at 532.

The instant action was filed July 2, 2009. Exhibit A to plaintiff’s AC

demonstrates plaintiff exhausted some of his claims after the filing of this action:

HDSP-31-09-13060 Third level denied December 21, 2009

HDSP-31-09-13233 Third level received on November 19, 2009, and as of

January 26, 2010, no third level decision had been

rendered.

(AC at 13.) Because these claims were not exhausted prior to the filing of the instant action, the

AC will be dismissed, but plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file a second amended

complaint. However, plaintiff should not include these claims in any second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff must file a new civil rights action to pursue these grievances, and is cautioned that he

should not file a complaint in federal court for HDSP-31-09-13233 until he receives his third

level decision.

However, a third level denial in DVI-08-1570 issued June 17, 2009 (AC at 13), 1

prior to the July 2, 2009 filing of the instant complaint. Plaintiff may pursue these claims in this

action. Because plaintiff’s allegations in DVI-08-1570 occurred in Deuel Vocational Institution

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

and plaintiff is now incarcerated at High Desert State Prison, he also should not include claims

for injunctive relief. As a general rule this court is unable to issue an order against individuals

who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,

395 U.S. 100 (1969).

In addition, in plaintiff’s original complaint, he failed to identify individual

defendants or provide facts concerning alleged harm to his liver. In his AC, plaintiff has failed to

clearly identify which defendants he is seeking to sue in the instant action. For example, on the

first page, he identifies the defendants as “T. Kimura, et al., Psych Services, et al., Calif. Dept. of

Corr. & Rehab., Psych Services, et al., High Desert State Prison - Psych Services, et al., Deuel

Vocational Institution Reception Center Psych Services, et al.” (AC at 1.) However, in the

“Defendants” portion of the AC, he names only T. Kimura as a defendant. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

then names various persons throughout the text of his complaint, but does not make clear

whether he intends to sue any or all of them who are not named in the caption of the AC on page

one. Moreover, in the exhibits, plaintiff provides a list of defendants, only one of which is

named in the caption of the AC. (AC, Ex. A, at 14.) Plaintiff is advised that in any second

amended complaint, he must clearly identify the named defendants in the caption and in the

defendants portion of the complaint. Neither the court, nor defendants, will review the text of, or

exhibits to, a complaint to determine who plaintiff is naming as a defendant. 

Also, plaintiff named Deuel Vocational Institution Reception Center Psych

Services as one of the defendants. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to

suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency

consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781

(1978)( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). In the

instant case, the State of California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, plaintiff's claims

against this defendant are frivolous and should not be renewed in any second amended

complaint.

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint so vague and

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a

claim for relief. The court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short

and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim

plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the

complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

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

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, 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).

In addition, plaintiff is hereby informed that the court cannot refer to a prior

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This

requirement exists 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 an amended

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

////

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

Finally, plaintiff should focus his second amended complaint on his claims

exhausted through grievance DVI-08-1570, and clearly identify the defendants he intends to sue

by listing them both in the caption and in the defendants’ portion of the complaint.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights

Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended

complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an second amended complaint in accordance with this

order may result in the dismissal of this action.

DATED: June 28, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

coat1830.14amd

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-1830 KJN P

vs.

T. KIMURA, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's

order filed :

______________ Second Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01830-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 06/29/10 Page 7 of 7