Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00566/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00566-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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 

ORLANDO LEWAYNE PILCHER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MIKE BABCOCK et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0566-EFB P (TEMP) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.1 Plaintiff has 

brought this civil action seeking relief pursuant to the decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 

Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).2 

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is before the court for screening. For the reasons 

discussed below, the complaint must be dismissed, without further leave to amend, for failure to 

state a cognizable claim for relief.

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

2

 Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and those brought under Bivens are similar, 

except that under § 1983 a state actor’s conduct is at issue, and under Bivens a federal actor’s 

conduct is at issue. See Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). When reviewing 

a Bivens action alleging a constitutional violation for which there is no case law directly on point 

with respect to the actions of federal officials, decisions addressing § 1983 cases are to be applied 

by analogy. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 503-04 (1978). 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 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 

2 

SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

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

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 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 

3 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 Similar to plaintiff’s prior complaints, his third amended complaint is difficult to decipher. 

He appears to complain that prison officials have deprived him of good-time credits, his property, 

telephone calls, visits, and time at the commissary. He also appears to complain that prison 

officials are injuring his reputation and depriving him of mail, specifically, gold coins. Finally, 

plaintiff appears to complain that he is not receiving adequate medical care, and Warden Babcock 

has ignored his inmate grievances. In terms of relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages and 

injunctive relief. See generally Third Am. Compl. 1-10. 

DISCUSSION 

 As an initial matter, the court previously informed plaintiff in two prior screening orders 

that a complaint must give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the 

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 

649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff was informed that he must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. Yet his third 

amended complaint does not allege in specific terms how any of the named defendants were 

involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. 

Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not 

sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 Moreover, as best as this court can tell, plaintiff’s primary complaint in this action has 

been one concerning his medical care. This court twice explained to plaintiff that to establish a 

violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, he must allege in specific 

terms how any named defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to his serious medical needs in 

either denying or providing inadequate medical care to him. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

106 (1976) (inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the 

mistreatment rose to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”). See also 

Minneci v. Pollard, __ U.S. __, __, 132 S. Ct. 617, 622 (2012) (recognizing that a Bivens action 

may be brought under the Eighth Amendment for damages incurred as a result of the provision of 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 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 

4 

inadequate medical care (citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980)). Once more, plaintiff has 

failed to allege sufficient facts in support of any claim that defendants were “deliberately 

indifferent” to his medical needs. He apparently is unable to do so. 

Finally, as indicated above, the court has twice provided plaintiff with the legal standards 

that govern the constitutional claims he is attempting to assert in this action and has twice given 

him the opportunity to cure the defects of his complaint. After screening plaintiff’s most-recently 

filed amended complaint, the undersigned concludes that plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of 

his complaint, and therefore, dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate. See Lipton v. 

Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would be 

futile, there was no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment.”). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 

2. The Clerk is directed to close this case. 

DATED: June 7, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 22 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 4