Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01874-1/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

SHAWN DAMON BARTH,

Plaintiff,

EUSEBIO MONTEJO, et al..

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1874 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 

forth below, this court finds plaintiff has failed to state any claims cognizable under § 1983. 

Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to amend his complaint. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on September 18, 2019. On screening, this court found 

plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims for relief. (Sept. 27, 2019 Order (ECF No. 5).) 

Plaintiff was provided instructions for amending his complaint. On December 23, plaintiff filed a 

first amended complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 13.) 

SCREENING

As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual basis for each claim 

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 8
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

in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). In 

addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each defendant and the 

deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). “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).

I. Allegations of the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)

Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”). He identifies eight

defendants: (1) Dr. Eusebio Montejo; (2) Captain Brown; (3) Lopez, CMF Institutional Security 

Unit; (4) Warden Jared Lozano; (5) Correctional Officer (“CO”) Borbe; (6) CO Lockwood; (7) 

Marrie, CMF food service; and (8) Associate Warden Media. 

Like his original complaint, plaintiff’s FAC is difficult to decipher. In addition, plaintiff has 

attached over 700 pages of exhibits to his FAC. This court will not review those exhibits to 

attempt to determine the bases for plaintiff’s claims. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to explain his 

claims plainly and briefly in the body of his complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

As best this court can tell, plaintiff makes the following allegations. First, Montejo made 

sexual advances toward him. Plaintiff then filed a complaint against Montejo under the Prison 

Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”). Montejo retaliated against plaintiff for filing the complaint by 

taking away plaintiff’s disability classification, plaintiff’s walker, and plaintiff’s pain 

medications. Plaintiff also appears to be alleging that Montejo denied him appropriate medical 

care, specifically shoulder surgery, referral to an orthopedic specialist, and appropriate food. 

Plaintiff alleges these actions were also retaliatory. 

In his second claim, plaintiff alleges his ingoing and outgoing legal mail has been stolen. He 

further alleges: (1) defendants Brown and Lozano have refused to respond to his 22 forms; (2) 

defendant Borbe stole plaintiff’s priority envelopes and gave them to “CCPOA gang members;”

(3) CO Lockwood harassed plaintiff; and (4) COs Lockwood and Borbe took numerous actions 

against plaintiff, including having him assaulted by another inmate. 

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 8
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

Finally, in plaintiff’s third claim, he appears to re-state some of the issues he raised in his 

first two claims. He adds allegations that he was denied the right to a hearing on two rules 

violation reports – one issued by CO Bird and one issued by defendant Borbe. 

II. Does Plaintiff State Cognizable Claims?

For a number of reasons, plaintiff’s FAC fails to state any cognizable claims under § 1983. 

Below, this court points out the problems with plaintiff’s allegations. In any second amended 

complaint, plaintiff must comply with the directives below if he wishes to continue with this case. 

A. Claims against Different Defendants Must be Related

The first problem with plaintiff’s FAC is that he is attempting to raise many unrelated claims 

against many defendants. As plaintiff was informed previously, “[u]nrelated claims against 

different defendants belong in different suits.” (ECF No. 5 at 5.) If plaintiff wishes to continue 

with this case, he must choose which claim or claims he wants to pursue here. As best this court 

can tell, plaintiff’s primary claim is for retaliation against defendant Montejo. If this is the 

primary claim plaintiff wishes to pursue here, he must limit his second amended complaint to 

only claims against Montejo and other claims that are related to the claims against Montejo. 

B. Exhaustion Requirement

Plaintiff indicates that at least some claims were not exhausted through the third level of 

review. Plaintiff is reminded that this court may not consider claims that he has not submitted to 

all three levels of review through the prison system. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff should 

not include claims in his second amended complaint that he has not fully exhausted. 

C. Claim Specificity 

Plaintiff’s complaint must be sufficiently specific so that a defendant knows what conduct 

plaintiff is complaining about. Plaintiff must allege facts showing: (1) what the defendant did or 

did not do; (2) when that conduct occurred; and (3) why the defendant’s conduct violated 

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The allegations in plaintiff’s FAC are not adequate to put a 

defendant on notice of plaintiff’s claims against them. In an attempt to help plaintiff focus his 

complaint, the court will re-state the legal standards for the claims plaintiff may be trying to bring 

against defendant Montejo.

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 8
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

1. Retaliation

To state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must specifically describe five things: (1) the 

protected conduct plaintiff engaged in; (2) the adverse action a defendant took against him; (3) 

that defendant took that action because plaintiff had engaged in protected conduct; (4) that 

defendant’s action would have caused a reasonable person to be concerned about exercising his 

First Amendment rights; and (5) that the defendant’s action did not have a legitimate basis. 

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005). In plaintiff’s FAC, he alleges that 

Montejo took numerous adverse actions against him because he filed a PREA complaint against 

Montejo. Plaintiff does not, however, allege facts showing the connection between his PREA 

complaint and Montejo’s conduct. 

In amending his claim for retaliation, plaintiff must show Montejo acted with a retaliatory 

motive. Plaintiff must show that Montejo was aware of the PREA complaint. But, that is not 

enough. Plaintiff must also state facts showing Montejo’s motive. Evidence of his motive may 

include: (1) proximity in time between the protected conduct and the alleged retaliation; (2) 

defendant’s expressed opposition to the protected conduct; and (3) other evidence showing that 

defendant’s reasons for the challenged action were false or pretextual. McCollum v. Cal. Dep’t 

of Corr. and Rehab., 647 F.3d 870, 882 (9th Cir. 2011). 

2. Medical Claims

Plaintiff may also be attempting to state claims that Montejo violated plaintiff’s right to 

medical care. Again, plaintiff’s current allegations are not sufficient. He simply lists a number of 

Montejo’s actions regarding his health care. To state an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 

indifference to his serious medical needs, plaintiff must show two things: that he had a serious 

medical need and that Montejo responded to that need with deliberate indifference. 

a. Serious Medical Need

A medical need is serious “if the failure to treat the prisoner's condition could result in 

further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted), overruled on other 

grounds, WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997). Indications of a serious 

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 4 of 8
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

medical need include “the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual’s daily activities.” Id. at 1059-60. By establishing the existence of a serious medical 

need, a prisoner satisfies the first, objective requirement for proving an Eighth Amendment 

violation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994).

b. Deliberate Indifference

If a plaintiff establishes the existence of a serious medical need, he must then show that 

defendant responded to the serious medical need with deliberate indifference. See Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 834. In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, 

or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which prison 

officials provide medical care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir. 

1988).

Before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged with regard to medical 

care, “the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ 

‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter 

Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06

(1976)); see also Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Mere 

negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition, without more, does not violate a 

prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights.”); McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059 (same). Deliberate 

indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires ‘more than 

ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's interests or safety.’” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.

Delays in providing medical care may manifest deliberate indifference. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 

104-05. To establish a claim of deliberate indifference arising from delay in providing care, a 

plaintiff must show that the delay was harmful. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 745-46 (9th 

Cir. 2002). In this regard, “[a] prisoner need not show his harm was substantial; however, such 

would provide additional support for the inmate's claim that the defendant was deliberately 

indifferent to his needs.” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff or between 

medical professionals as to the proper course of treatment for a medical condition do not give rise 

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 5 of 8
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

6

to a § 1983 claim. See Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1058; Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th

Cir. 1996).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff should 

carefully review the descriptions above of the problems with his FAC. In addition to curing those 

problems, plaintiff must adhere to the following standards for stating claims for relief under § 

1983. 

• Plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant and describe just what that defendant 

did that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should carefully review the 

legal standards set out above and in prior screening order to determine whether a 

defendant’s conduct amounts to a constitutional violation. 

• Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 

substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. 

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the 

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act 

or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged 

deprivation). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 

rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted).

• Plaintiff must make a short, plain statement of the facts supporting each claim. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

• Plaintiff may allege multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

18(a). Each separate claim should be contained in a separate, numbered set of 

paragraphs. However, Rule 20(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to sue multiple defendants 

in the same action only if “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, 

severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same 

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences,” and there is a 

“question of law or fact common to all defendants.” “Thus multiple claims against 

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with 

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Simply alleging a “conspiracy” does not 

transform unrelated claims into related claims. 

• Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is 

brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations 

are true. It must contain a request for particular relief. 

• An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior 

pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the 

original pleadings are superseded.

• Plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a). 

• Finally, plaintiff is advised that by signing an amended complaint, he certifies he 

has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations, and 

for violation of this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter 

repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

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

1. Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No. 13) is dismissed with leave to amend. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint;” 

failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

////

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint form 

used in this district.

Dated: January 6, 2020

DLB:9

DB/prisoner-civil rights/bart1874.FAC scrn lta

Case 2:19-cv-01874-WBS-DB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 8 of 8