Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01686-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. BROOKS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1686 LEW GGH P

vs.

SUSAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $2.25 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 1 of 6
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

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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

(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, __ U.S. __, 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). 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 (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 (1969). 

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Feliciano used excessive force against him. 

Following this incident, plaintiff was charged with and found guilty of a rules violation for

resisting a peace officer. As punishment, plaintiff was denied outdoor exercise for ninety days. 

When plaintiff filed a grievance regarding these matters, he was charged with another rules

violation for false allegation against a peace officer. Plaintiff alleges legal claims for violations

of the Eighth Amendment and due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and retaliation.

The complaint states a colorable Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force

against defendant Feliciano. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Wright and Street violated the

Eighth Amendment by denying him outdoor exercise for ninety days as punishment for resisting

a peace officer. These allegations state a colorable Eighth Amendment claim.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant McCloughan, his investigative employee for the

disciplinary charges involving defendant Feliciano, did not conduct an adequate investigation. 

Inmates facing disciplinary charges are entitled to the aid of a staff member if the inmate is

illiterate or the issues complex. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570, 94 S.Ct. 2963 (1974). 

The charges were not complex and plaintiff is obviously not illiterate. Accordingly, because

plaintiff had no due process right to an investigative employee, his claims against defendant

McCloughan are without merit.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Perry did not adequately investigate his

administrative appeal regarding the incident involving defendant Feliciano. There is no liberty

interest in the processing of administrative appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003); see also Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, plaintiff has not

stated a colorable due process claim against defendant Perry.

Plaintiff alleges that in response to his administrative grievance, defendant Perry

falsely charged plaintiff with false allegations against a peace officer, as a result of which

plaintiff was assessed another ninety days of outdoor exercise. Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Van Leer found plaintiff guilty of these charges even though they were not supported by

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 3 of 6
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

sufficient evidence. These allegations state colorable claims for a First Amendment “access”

deprivation or retaliation and for violation of the right to due process against defendants Perry

and Van Leer. These allegations also state colorable Eighth Amendment claims against

defendant Van Leer.

Plaintiff alleges that at the second level of review, prison officials determined that

defendants Wright and Street should not have punished plaintiff by denying him outdoor exercise

for ninety days. Plaintiff alleges that because defendant Warden Felker did not immediately

instruct his subordinates of this finding, plaintiff was not allowed outdoor exercise for

approximately forty-five days. These allegations state a colorable claim for relief against

defendant Felker.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Starcevich moved plaintiff to a new cell, informing

plaintiff that his cellmate required the lower bunk. Plaintiff told defendant that he also had a

medical need for a lower bunk. After plaintiff refused to move, defendant charged plaintiff with

willfully delaying a peace officer in his duties. Defendant then confiscated plaintiff’s television

and placed him in the Behavior Management Unit. The television was later donated to the

institution because plaintiff was reluctant to sign a form to mail it home due to a pending

administrative appeal. 

Plaintiff’s legal claims against defendant Starcevich are not clear. It is unclear if

plaintiff is alleging claims based on the disciplinary charges, confiscation of the television, or

both. Accordingly, the claims against defendant Starcevich are dismissed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Hubbard and Felker were aware of the retaliatory

acts or should have been. Plaintiff does not allege how defendants were made aware of the

alleged retaliation. Without this information, the court cannot determine whether plaintiff has

stated a colorable claim for relief. Accordingly, the claims against these defendants are

dismissed with leave to amend.

\\\\\

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 4 of 6
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

As indicated above, plaintiff generally alleges that he was retaliated against. The

complaint includes no specific allegations to support a retaliation claim against any defendant. 

Accordingly, the retaliation claims are dismissed with leave to amend.

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 (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).

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.25. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. Plaintiff’s claims against all defendants but for those claims found colorable

above as to defendants Feliciano, Wright, Street, Perry, Van Leer and Felker, are dismissed for

the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the

date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action.

4. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor,

the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants.

DATED: 12/21/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

br1686.b1

Case 2:07-cv-01686-RLH-VPC Document 8 Filed 12/21/07 Page 6 of 6