Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04115/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04115-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNETH GIBBS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. WOOD, et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-4115-TEH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison-Los Angeles 

County, filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend 

and Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. 

I 

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). 

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants, however, must be liberally 

construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 5
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must 

allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under 

the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

II 

Plaintiff describes various incidents where he was the 

victim of retaliation and excessive force. 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First 

Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) an 

assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and 

that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 

567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). Accord Pratt v. 

Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (prisoner suing prison 

officials under § 1983 for retaliation must allege that he was 

retaliated against for exercising his constitutional rights and 

that the retaliatory action did not advance legitimate 

penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and 

discipline). 

“After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment 

forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 

312, 319 (1986) (omission in original) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Whenever prison officials stand accused of using 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the 

deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate. Hudson v. 

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). Instead, the core judicial 

inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to 

maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically 

to cause harm. Id. at 6-7; Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21. 

Plaintiff first argues that Captain Wood transferred 

Plaintiff to a different Administrative Segregation unit in 

retaliation for the filing of a grievance regarding the 

Institutional Classification Committee (“ICC”). Liberally 

construed this states a claim for retaliation. 

Plaintiff next argues that he was placed on C status for the 

same offense, and it was in retaliation for filing grievances. 

However, Plaintiff does not describe C status and what it 

entails, and the nature of the relation allegation is difficult 

to understand. This claim is dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff also argued that Defendant J. Evans used excessive 

force against him causing injuries to his face, nose, and wrist, 

and this was in retaliation because Plaintiff called another 

officer a racist. The excessive force claim is sufficient to 

proceed but the retaliation claim is dismissed with leave to 

amend to provide more information regarding the elements set 

forth above in Rhodes. 

In filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff is informed that a 

“plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 

'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels and 

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a 

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 5
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 

570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the 

“plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must 

be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded 

factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and 

then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

III 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby orders as 

follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, within twenty-eight days. The 

pleading must state clearly how each and every Defendant is 

alleged to have violated Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights. 

See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. The pleading must include the caption 

and civil case number used in this order and the words COURT 

ORDERED SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff is 

advised that he must file all of his claims in one complaint and 

not present them piecemeal to the Court in various letters and 

other documents. Failure to file a proper Second Amended 

Complaint within twenty-eight days of this order will result in 

the dismissal of all claims except the claims deemed cognizable 

above. 

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/01/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

2. Plaintiff is advised that the Second Amended Complaint 

will supersede the original Complaint and all other pleadings. 

Claims and defendants not included in the First Amended Complaint 

will not be considered by the Court. See Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) ("For claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, we will not 

require that they be repled in a subsequent amended complaint to 

preserve them for appeal. But for any claims voluntarily 

dismissed, we will consider those claims to be waived if not 

repled."). 

3. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this 

action. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of 

address by filing a separate paper with the Clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in 

a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal 

of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 02/29/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\CR.15\Gibbs4115.dwlta2.docx

Case 4:15-cv-04115-PJH Document 10 Filed 03/01/16 Page 5 of 5