Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00708/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00708-1/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UDI FISHMAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 00708 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on July 14, 2014 (ECF No. 5). 

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 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

27

28 2

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. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Shafter Community Correctional Facility, brings this civil rights 

action against defendant CDCR and the State of California. Plaintiff claims that his civil rights 

were violated when he was transferred to Shafter from CSP Solano. Specifically, Plaintiff 

alleges that he was transferred involuntarily to a facility with inadequate law library facilities.

Plaintiff alleges that at Shafter, inmates are not provided regular access to the law library, 

and that Shafter “does not provide inmates in a timely way to receive legal forms and 

instructions that allow petitioner timely access to the courts.” Plaintiff also alleges that the 

transfer to Shafter from Solano places an undue burden and hardship on him, as he is now 

located further from “his home, work and community.” The transfer to Shafter also results in 

placement in a facility that does not allow inmates access to scheduled family visits.

 

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 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

27

28 3

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of 

respondeat superior, and there must exist come causal connection between the conduct of each 

named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California 

Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 

1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012).

A. Eleventh Amendment

The Court notes that Plaintiff does not identify any individual defendants. The only 

defendants are the State of California and the CDCR. “The Eleventh Amendment prohibits 

federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. Though its language 

might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has long been construed to extend to suits 

brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states.” Brooks v. 

Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Seminole 

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority v. 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 

677 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The State of California is 

immune from suit, and the CDCR, an agency of the State of California, is also immune from suit.

B. Transfer

Prisoners have no liberty interest in being housed at a particular institution. Olim v. 

Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano,427 U.S. 215, 225-27 (1976); United 

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 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

27

28 4

States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 105 (9th Cir. 1991)(per curiam); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 

519 (9th Cir. 1991)(per curiam); Coakley v. Murphy, 884 F.2d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Therefore, the mere fact of Plaintiff’s transfer fails to state a claim for relief.

C. Access to Courts

Because states must ensure indigent prisoners meaningful access to the courts, prison 

officials are required to provide either (1) adequate law libraries, or (2) adequate assistance from 

persons trained in the law. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). Under prior law, 

Bounds was treated as establishing “core requirements,” such that a prisoner alleging deprivation 

of the Bounds minima need not allege actual injury to a state constitutional claim. Sands v. 

Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Recent Supreme Court precedent abolishes such 

approach, however, providing that all inmate claims for interference with access to the court 

include “actual injury” as an element. Casey v. Lewis, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). 

To establish a Bounds violation, a prisoner must show that his/her prison’s law library or 

legal assistance program frustrated or impeded his/her ability to pursue a nonfrivolous legal 

claim. Casey, supra, 518 U.S. 343, 347. The right of access does not require the State to “enable 

the prisoner to discover grievances” or to “litigate effectively once in court.” The Casey court 

further limits the right of access to the courts, as follows:

Finally, we must observe that the injury requirement is not 

satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim . . . Bounds does 

not guarantee inmates the wherewithal to transform themselves 

into litigating engines capable of filing everything from

shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall claims. The tools it 

requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to 

attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to 

challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any 

other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and 

perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and 

incarceration.

Casey, 518 U.S. at 346. Plaintiff has not alleged any facts suggesting that he suffered actual 

injury as that term is defined above. This claim should therefore be dismissed.

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 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

27

28 5

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief. The complaint 

should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In 

order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 

describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant 

acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what 

happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular 

right described by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 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

27

28 6

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-00708-BAM Document 6 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 6