Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06554-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O MORALES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-CV-06554-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER AND

REQUEST FOR SCREENING OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 46)

ORDER FINDING SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT STATES COGNIZABLE

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AGAINST

DEFENDANTS AND ORDERING

DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 42)

Plaintiff James L. Thompson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was ordered to proceed

on plaintiff’s complaint, filed November 12, 2004, defendants Morales, David, Martinez, and

Reynoso for use of excessive physical force based on the incident of June 24, 2003, and against

defendants Morales and David for retaliation. (Docs. 16, 17, 26.) Defendants Morales, David,

Martinez, and Reynoso (“defendants”) waived service of summons and filed an answer to the

complaint on August 17, 2005, and the court issued a scheduling order on September 27, 2005.

(Docs. 27-36.) On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend. (Doc. 37.) On

December 2, 2005, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to amend, ordered the Clerk’s Office to file

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 48 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 3
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 the proposed amended complaint, and screened the amended complaint, finding that it stated

cognizable claims for relief against defendants Morales, David, Martinez, Reynoso, and Masiel for

use of excessive physical force, and against defendants Morales, David, and Martinez for retaliation,

but did not state any cognizable state law tort claims because plaintiff failed to plead compliance

with the Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 39.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended

complaint or notify court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable.

(Id.) On January 23, 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 42.) On April 28,

2006, defendants filed a motion seeking an order setting aside the scheduling order and requesting

that the second amended complaint be screened pursuant to section 1915A. (Doc. 46.)

Defendants’ motion to vacatethe scheduling order and request that the court screen plaintiff’s

second amended complaint shall be granted.

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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to 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).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether

the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 48 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 3
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

the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). 

The court has screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 23, 2006, and

finds that it appears to state cognizable claims for relief against defendants Morales, David,

Martinez, Reynoso, and Masiel under section 1983 for use of excessive physical force and for

retaliation, and under state law for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Defendants Morales, David, Martinez, and Reynoso shall file a response to the

second amended complaint within thirty days. In a separate order issued concurrently with this

order, the court shall direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of process on defendant

Masiel.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion for an order vacating the scheduling order and request for

screening of second amended complaint, filed April 28, 2006, is GRANTED;

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court finds that plaintiff’s second amended

complaint states claims for relief against defendants Morales, David, Martinez,

Reynoso, and Masiel under section 1983 for use of excessive physical force and for

retaliation, and under state law for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress; and

3. Defendants Morales, David, Martinez, and Reynoso shall file a response to the

second amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06554-SMS Document 48 Filed 06/21/06 Page 3 of 3