Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01238-0/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

JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1238 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. FLINT, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2006, this action was removed to federal court from state court. 

The court will now screen the complaint. 28 U.S.C, § 1915(e)(2).

Named as defendants are Lieutenant Flint, Lieutenant Holmes, Sergeant

Blackburn, Sergeant Ybarra, Officer Hampton and Officer Cervantes. Plaintiff first alleges that

on May 25, 2005, Officer Cea told plaintiff that he was being transferred to a different building. 

Plaintiff told officer Cea that he had an injunction pending in another action filed in this court

which prohibited plaintiff from being harassed and retaliated against. Defendant Cea relayed this

information to defendant Blackburn who told plaintiff that defendant Hampton wanted him

transferred. Defendant Blackburn told plaintiff that he did not care about plaintiff’s pending

litigation or citizen complaints against defendant Hampton. Plaintiff told defendant Blackburn

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

that his approval of plaintiff’s transfer was in retaliation for plaintiff’s legal activities.

Plaintiff returned to his cell and continued packing. When defendant Blackburn

came to his cell, plaintiff informed him that he needed to see a mental health worker because he

was experiencing mental problems. Defendant Blackburn placed plaintiff in handcuffs and

ordered another officer to escort plaintiff to the medical clinic.

Once at the medical clinic, plaintiff was placed in a holding cage under the

supervision of defendant Cervantes. Defendant Cervantes told plaintiff that no mental health

staff were available. Sometime later, defendant Blackburn arrived and told plaintiff to go to his

new housing unit. Plaintiff told defendant Blackburn that he needed to see a mental health

worker because he was feeling suicidal. Defendant Blackburn then gave plaintiff a medical

health care request and told plaintiff to fill it out in his new cell. Plaintiff told defendant

Blackburn that he needed to be seen by mental health staff. Defendant Blackburn responded that

plaintiff could either go to his new cell or to administrative segregation. 

Plaintiff then told defendant Blackburn that he felt like killing himself. Defendant

Blackburn told defendant Cervantes that plaintiff was going to segregation and left plaintiff

locked in the holding cage. Plaintiff again told defendant Cervantes that he needed to be seen by

mental health staff. Defendant Cervantes again told plaintiff that no mental health staff were

available.

While locked in the holding cage, plaintiff attempted suicide by cutting his wrist. 

An inmate noticed blood dripping down plaintiff’s hand and Psychologist Holiday was

summoned. Psychologist Holiday then informed plaintiff’s psychologist, Dr. Botello, that one of

her patients was in the holding cage asking to speak with her. Plaintiff was then placed on

suicide watch.

Prior to being transferred to suicide watch, defendant Flint came to speak with

plaintiff regarding the administrative segregation unit placement notice prepared by defendant

Blackburn. Defendant Flint told plaintiff that he was going to segregation due to being a

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

program failure and for his own safety.

Plaintiff was placed in administrative segregation seven days after his placement

on suicide watch. The administrative segregation placement notice that was placed on plaintiff’s

cell door stated that he was a member of the Blood prison/street gang. Plaintiff alleges that

defendants knew that one month earlier, plaintiff had been cleared of gang membership. 

On June 2, 2005, defendant Ybarra arranged for plaintiff to be housed with a

Blood prison/street gang member. Plaintiff told defendant Ybarra that he wanted no involvement

with gang activity and that he needed a lower bunk for medical reasons. Defendant Ybarra told

plaintiff to sleep in the cell for one night on the upper bunk and she would find plaintiff a risk

free cell. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Ybarra did not find him a new cell the following day. 

This caused plaintiff to again be placed on suicide watch. 

Plaintiff filed an inmate complaint regarding defendant Blackburn’s conduct on

May 25, 2005. Defendant Ybarra reviewed the complaint, although she and defendant Blackburn

had the same rank. The prison coordinator later ordered plaintiff’s complaint reheard. 

On September 10, 2005, defendant Holmes interviewed plaintiff regarding the

events of May 25, 2005. Defendant Holmes conducted no investigation into plaintiff’s claims. 

Defendant Holmes’ report was identical to the report prepared by defendant Ybarra.

Plaintiff’s complaint contains four legal claims: 1) plaintiff’s transfer on May 25,

2005, was motivated by retaliation; 2) plaintiff was denied mental health treatment in violation of

the Eighth Amendment; 3) the false labeling of plaintiff as a gang member violated the Eighth

Amendment; and 4) the failure to investigate plaintiff’s administrative appeals fostered a code of

silence in violation of state and federal law. 

In order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts which suggest that

retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” factor

behind the defendant’s conduct. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th

Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must also plead facts which suggest an absence of legitimate

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802,

806 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985). Verbal

harassment alone is insufficient to state a claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139

(9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats of bodily injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a

mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923,

925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions of hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner

must “allege specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s

constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 562 (n. 1) (10th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Blackburn and Hampton ordered his transfer to a

new cell in retaliation for his pending litigation and citizen complaints against defendant

Hampton. In particular, plaintiff cites an action filed in this court which named defendant

Hampton as a defendant, CIV S-04-0496 GEB DAD P, as the litigation which motivated the

retaliation. Court records indicate that plaintiff filed 04-0496 on March 11, 2005, and this case is

correctly identified as 05-496. As of May 25, 2005, no orders had issued in this action. In other

words, defendant Hampton had not yet been served with this complaint. It is unclear how

plaintiff is claiming that defendants were aware of 04-496 under these circumstances. For this

reason, the court cannot find that defendants were motivated by this lawsuit when they ordered

plaintiff’s transfer.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants were motivated by his citizen complaints

against defendant Hampton. Plaintiff does not describe any of these citizen complaints, such as

when they were filed and whether defendants Hampton and Blackburn were aware of them. For

this reason, the court finds that plaintiff’s retaliation claim based on the filing of citizen

complaints is vague and conclusory. This claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

Plaintiff next alleges that he was denied mental health treatment. This allegation

states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Blackburn, Cervantes and Ybarra.

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

Plaintiff alleges that defendants falsely labeled him as a gang member prior to his

placement in administrative segregation. The court finds that these allegations state a colorable

claim for relief against the defendants linked to this claim, i.e. defendants Blackburn, Flint and

Ybarra. 

Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants’ failure to investigate his administrative

appeals violated state and federal law. The court construes this to be a claim for violation of the

right to due process. Inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance

procedures. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9 Cir. 2003); see Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d th

639, 640 (9 Cir. 1988) (order) (“[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a grievance th

procedure.”). Plaintiff’s claim regarding defendants’ failure to investigate his administrative

appeals does not state a colorable claim.

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and violation of

due process based on the process of his administrative appeals are dismissed. 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.

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 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

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 plaintiff’s claims alleging

retaliation and violation of due process based on the processing of his administrative appeals are

dismissed with thirty days to file an amended complaint; if plaintiff does not file an amended

complaint within that time, the court will issue further orders.

DATED: 7/25/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

will1238.ord

Case 2:06-cv-01238-FCD-GGH Document 6 Filed 07/26/06 Page 6 of 6