Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02678-2/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

ANTHONY RAUL BARRON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-11-2678 GGH P

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed and plaintiff has filed an amended

complaint. 

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). 

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

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 03/13/12 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

2

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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.

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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127

S.Ct. 1955). “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.” Id.

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct.

1843 (1969).

The crux of plaintiff’s complaint is that he was improperly validated as a gang

member. The majority of the complaint involves describing how the six source items were

improperly used to validate plaintiff. As described below, only one source item is required and

only minimal procedural protections are needed. Plaintiff has failed to allege that the minimal

procedures were violated in the course of the gang validation. Plaintiff also makes general

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 03/13/12 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

3

allegations of retaliation, though the accusations are difficult to discern. Plaintiff was cited for

gang activity and an investigation began. Plaintiff states he filed appeals regarding the

investigation, and then in retaliation, he was validated as a gang member. Yet, plaintiff has

failed to demonstrate that the initial investigation was in retaliation for any protected conduct, or

what defendants did in the course of the appeal, constituted retaliation. That defendants

continued the investigation despite plaintiff’s appeals, and then came to their conclusion, fails to

show retaliation. The amended complaint is dismissed but plaintiff may file a second amended

complaint within twenty-eight days.

The process constitutionally due to an inmate placed in segregation depends on

whether the placement is disciplinary or administrative. Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080,

1099 (9th Cir. 1986). In Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit

determined that California’s policy of placing suspected gang members in segregation is an

administrative decision, undertaken to preserve order in the prison. When an inmate is placed in

segregation for administrative purposes, due process requires only the following procedures:

Prison officials must hold an informal nonadversary hearing within a reasonable

time after the prisoner is segregated. The prison officials must inform the prisoner

of the charges against the prisoner or their reasons for considering segregation. 

Prison officials must allow the prisoner to present his views.... [D]ue process [ ]

does not require detailed written notice of charges, representation by counsel or

counsel-substitute, an opportunity to present witnesses, or a written decision

describing the reasons for placing the prisoner in administrative segregation.

Toussaint, 801 F.2d at 1100-01 (footnote omitted). 

Prisoners are entitled to the minimal procedural protections of adequate notice and

an opportunity to be heard. Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287. In addition to these minimal protections,

there must be “some evidence” supporting the decision to place a prisoner in segregated housing. 

Id. (citing Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768 (1985)).

The “some evidence” standard sets a low bar, consistent with the recognition that

assignment of inmates within prisons is “essentially a matter of administrative discretion,”

subject to “minimal legal limitations.” Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1287 (citing Toussaint, 801 F.2d 1080,

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 03/13/12 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

4

with respect to the minimal limitations). A single piece of evidence may be sufficient to meet the

“some evidence” requirement, if that evidence has “sufficient indicia of reliability.” Id. at 1288;

Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1987) (“relevant question is whether there is any

evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board”

(citing Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56 (emphases in original)).

To the extent that any defendants were retaliatory, plaintiff must plead facts which

suggest that retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or

“motivating” factor behind the defendant’s conduct. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874

F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must also plead facts which suggest an absence of

legitimate correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 1995). Verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim. See

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats of bodily

injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing

the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions of

hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner must “allege specific facts showing retaliation

because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560,

562 (n. 1) (10th Cir. 1990).

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). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598 (1976); 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. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 03/13/12 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

5

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

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

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

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. 

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

complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file a second amended

complaint, within twenty-eight days from the date of service of this order. Once again any

second amended complaint may not exceed 30 pages in length including exhibits. Failure to

file a second amended complaint will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: March 12, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

GGH: AB

barr2678.b2

Case 2:11-cv-02678-JAM-AC Document 12 Filed 03/13/12 Page 5 of 5