Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05269/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05269-0/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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LEON EUGENE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCBRIDE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05269-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING THE

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

INTRODUCTION 

 Plaintiff Leon Morris claims that his former jailors at Salinas Valley State Prison 

violated his constitutional rights in numerous instances from 2005 through 2007. This is 

the fourth lawsuit Morris has filed against staff at Salinas Valley while his actions have 

been assigned to me.1

 

The current complaint, which was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is now before the 

Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). His July 2005 claim of retaliation may 

go forward if Morris cures deficiencies in his allegations in an amended complaint. 

 

1 The other three are Morris v. Travis, No. 10-4010, Morris v. Petersen, No. 12-2480, and 

Morris v. Travis, No. 14-5134. The complaint in the instant action closely matches the 

complaint filed in No. 12-2480. 

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 6
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 California

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20, persons may be joined in one action as 

defendants only if “(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in 

the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series 

of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question of law or fact common to all 

defendants will arise in the action.” 

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 6
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 California

B. Legal Claims 

Morris raises 20 claims against over 20 defendants, all employees of Salinas Valley 

State Prison. He alleges that that (1) twice in June 2005, correctional officers T. Robinson 

and M. Torres “tore up” his cell at the orders of Lt. Biaggini (id. at 3A); (2) from June 

2005 to June 2006, S. Espey, J. Fajardo, Torres, T. Robinson, D. Perez, Torres, D. 

Crawford, A. Hernandez, M. Lopez, O. Ponce, R. Sanchez, Peterson, McBride, Luna, 

Sullivan, Kessler and Locke repeatedly withheld meals, or served incomplete ones, as acts 

of retaliation, but he has alleged specific facts against only J. Gonzalez and Espey for their 

acts in January 2006 (id. at 3I-3J), (3) twice in July 2005, T. Robinson “ramshacked” his 

cell in retaliation for going on a hunger strike (id. at 3A); (4) several times in August 2005, 

T. Robinson, M. Torres, J. Fajardo searched his cell without justification (id.); (5) in 

August 2005, T. Robinson placed a shower matt in front of Morris’s cell, over which A. 

Fernandez and J. Brewen forced Morris to trip and injure himself, an act of retaliation (id.

at 3B-3C); (6) in August 2005, T. Robinson and J. Fajardo “ramshacked” his cell and 

removed legal materials while J. Perez failed to intervene (id. at 3G); (7) also in August 

2005, T. Robinson, J. Fajardo, S. Espey, and D. Perez removed legal materials from his 

cell while J. Perez failed to intervene (id.); (8) twice in September 2005, T. Robinson 

searched his cell without justification (id. at 3A); (9) twice in September 2005, T. 

Robinson, M. Torres, and J. Farjardo searched his cell without justification (id.); (10) in 

September 2005, in retaliation for filing a grievance, S. Espey refused to serve Morris his 

religious meal and threw a peanut butter packet at Morris, who suffered a laceration when 

it hit him (id. at 3C); (11) in September 2005 Registered Nurse William, without any 

authority, terminated his prescribed pain medications in an act of retaliation (id. at 3F);

(12) in October 2005, T. Tran refused to serve him his customary religious meal, after 

which Sgt. Petersen pepper-sprayed him and waited 45 minutes before calling medical 

help (id. at 3C-3D); (13) his cell was never properly decontaminated after the October 

2005 pepper-spray attack (id. at 3D); (14) in October 2005, Roque failed to accommodate 

his medical condition in an act of retaliation (id. at 3I); (15) in December 2005, C. Jones, 

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 6
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 California

R. Sanchez, J. Fajardo, Arubias, M. Ortiz, and Peterson stole his legal mail and his 

confidential medical records in an act of retaliation (id. at 3H); (16) in March 2006, Sgt. 

Sullivan and Espey failed to accommodate his medical condition (id. at 3I); (17) in May 

2006, prison law librarians McDonald and Powell retaliated against him by failing to 

provide him with requested legal materials, which hindered Morris’s access to the courts 

(Compl. at 3E-3F); (18) in August 2006, J. Rodriguez used excessive force against him in 

an act of retaliation; Morris further claims that S. Celaya and (her husband) Lt. Celaya 

planned the attack with Rodriguez but neither were not present during the actual incident 

(id. at 3D-3E); (19) in June 2006, Beatty failed to give Morris a proper mattress in an act 

of retaliation for filing a grievance (id. at 3H); and (20) in August 2007, M. Zornes threw 

out Morris’s religious and legal books as an act of retaliation (id. at 3L). 

Morris’s claims, involving over 20 defendants committing different acts (denial of 

access to the courts, taking property and legal materials, deliberate indifference, serving 

bad (or no) food) at different times over three years, are unrelated by fact or law. They run 

afoul of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. 

Morris attempts to link these disparate events by alleging that they are acts of 

retaliation by the Salinas Valley correctional officers (whom he collectively calls the 

“Greenwall Gang”) who dislike Morris because he files inmate grievances against them. 

He cites as proof of this plan of retaliation conversations he overheard among correctional 

officers on April 6, 2006 (Compl. at 3K), and some direct admissions by officers that they 

were acting out of retaliation for his filing of grievances and lawsuits against them

This is insufficient to justify the inclusion of these disparate claims in one action. The 

April 2006 conversation contains both general and specific threats of retaliation, but fails 

to link the over 20 defendants and the 20 claims together. As for the alleged admissions, 

each one might indicate that the specific act related to that admission was retaliatory, but in 

no way links these 20 disparate claims together. 

 Claim 1, though the earliest in time, may not proceed because Morris has not stated 

a claim for retaliation. “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment 

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 4 of 6
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 California

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). Morris has not shown that refusing to take 

a cellmate is constitutionally protected conduct, such as denial of access to the courts or 

filing grievances against prison officials. A prisoner must show that the type of activity he 

was engaged in was constitutionally protected, that the protected conduct was a substantial 

or motivating factor for the alleged retaliatory action, and that the retaliatory action 

advanced no legitimate penological interest. Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267-68 (9th 

Cir. 1997). Because Morris has not stated a claim under these standards, Claim 1 is 

DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

 Claim 3, the next in time,2can go forward if Morris cures his failure to allege harm. 

In that claim, he alleges that twice in July 2005, T. Robinson “ramshacked” his cell in 

retaliation for going on a hunger strike (Compl. at 3A). Unlike refusing to take a cellmate, 

going on a hunger strike may well meet the standard for exercising the constitutional right 

of free speech. But a prisoner must at least allege that he suffered harm, since harm that is 

more than minimal will almost always have a chilling effect. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567-68 

n.11; see Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2001) (prisoner alleged 

injury by claiming he had to quit his law library job in the face of repeated threats by 

defendants to transfer him because of his complaints about the administration of the 

library); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that a retaliation 

claim is not actionable unless there is an allegation of harm). The harm or injury need not 

be “more tangible than a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 

1127. This is an easily amendable defect and Morris will be given an opportunity to cure 

this deficiency in an amended complaint. The remaining claims are DISMISSED without 

 

2 Claim 2 is not earliest in time because Morris provided facts sufficient to state a claim 

only for an incident in 2006. 

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prejudice to Morris bringing them in separate actions, either in state or federal court. 

Morris shall file an amended complaint on or before May 15, 2015. The first 

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (14-

5269 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, 

Morris must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and 

all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th 

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal 

of this action without further notice to plaintiff. The Court reminds Morris that the 

amended complaint must be limited to a discussion of Claim 3 and should allege how he 

suffered harm. If he realleges any other claims, they will be summarily dismissed. 

It is Morris’s responsibility to prosecute this case. He must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 3, 2015

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05269-WHO Document 6 Filed 04/03/15 Page 6 of 6