Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01867-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GLENN O’CONNOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1867-WBS-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 8, 10) and 

a motion for extension of time and/or stay (ECF No. 9). 

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis and Motion for Extension/Stay 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

 Further, plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and/or stay in order to submit a 

completed in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 9) is denied as unnecessary. 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01867-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 5
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 

Screening Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include 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 Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01867-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 5
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 

Screening Order 

 Plaintiff alleges that Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3006(a) violates his right to due process in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1 Specifically, he claims that the provision against 

“constructive possession” of dangerous property allows for those who are actually innocent of the 

offense to be found guilty. Plaintiff claims he had been disciplinary-free for 29 years, and that 

because of the regulation, he was found guilty of a disciplinary charge (for which he was 

innocent), which was then relied upon to deny him parole. ECF No. 1 at 7. Plaintiff states that he 

“has no legal method of demanding that other prisoners obey the laws or prison rules [and] thus[,] 

remains at risk from every other prisoner who decides he wants to acquire contraband.” Id. at 17. 

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

to strike down the regulation as unconstitutional. Id. at 6. Alternatively, he requests that he be 

assigned to a single-cell. 

Plaintiff’s claim is not viable as alleged because the only defendant named is the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). CDCR, however, is a state 

agency that is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of 

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989); Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(per curiam) (holding that prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claims against CDCR for damages and 

injunctive relief were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. 

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state 

agencies). The proper defendant for injunctive relief in a suit seeking a change of CDCR policy 

is the CDCR Secretary in his official capacity. Rouser v. White, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1066 

(E.D. Cal. 2010), 

Moreover, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged an interest protected by the due process 

clause. Plaintiff claims his right to due process was violated because the guilty finding was relied 

upon in part by the Board of Prison Terms to deny him parole, and that this may occur again in 

 1

 Plaintiff also attempts to categorize his claim as an Eighth Amendment violation (ECF 

No. 1 at 16). But even so characterized, the claim fails because he has not shown that CDCR’s 

practices deny him “the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities.” See Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

Case 2:19-cv-01867-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 3 of 5
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 

the future and he is subject to an indeterminate life sentence. ECF No. 1 at 7. It is wellestablished, however, that “[t]here is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally 

released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the States are under no duty to offer parole 

to their prisoners.” Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Whatever liberty interest in 

parole is created by state law is a “state interest” that is not substantively enforceable in the 

federal courts. Id. 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he must name 

as a defendant an individual who can carry out the injunctive relief he requests (i.e., the warden 

where he is presently housed and/or the current CDCR Secretary). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants. Id. 

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

///// 

Case 2:19-cv-01867-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 4 of 5
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 

5 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 8, 10) is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in 

accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith; 

 3. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and/or stay (ECF No. 9) is denied as 

unnecessary; 

 4. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 

from the date of service of this order; and 

 5. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 

DATED: February 10, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-01867-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 02/10/20 Page 5 of 5