Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02703/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02703-12/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

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL A. SWEET 

NO. CIV. S-04-2703 FCD EFB P

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

O.C. O’CONNOR, et al., 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff, Michael A. Sweet (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action seeking relief

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and

Local General Order No. 262.

On February 20, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”), filed

February 2, 2007, granting defendants Boyd, Campbell, Cornish,

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/29/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Lattimore, and Purifoy’s motion to dismiss. 

When timely objections to findings by a magistrate judge are

filed, the district court must conduct a de novo determination of

the findings and recommendations as to issues of law. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). The district court may adopt, reject, or modify in

part or in full the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). Upon review of the file, the court modifies the

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations relating to

plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants

Campbell, Lattimore, and Cornish.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if

it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts

in support of the claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon

v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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 Hosp. 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). 

In his complaint, plaintiff raises claims that defendants,

generally, violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating

against him for filing a lawsuit against prison officials at

plaintiff’s previous prison.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/29/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First

Amendment 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)

harmed the prisoner and (5) was not narrowly tailored

to advance a legitimate correctional goal.

 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). The

Ninth Circuit has found that a prisoner properly alleged a claim

for First Amendment retaliation where he was transferred from the

prison in retaliation for engaging in protected activity and

where he alleged that the action did not advance legitimate goals

of the correctional institution. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527,

531-32 (9th Cir. 1985). 

In this case, plaintiff alleges in his complaint that

defendants transferred him on the “conjecture” and “fabrication”

that plaintiff had an enemy in Mule Creek Prison. (1st Am. Compl

¶ 25). Plaintiff alleges that defendants knew about the lawsuit. 

(Id. ¶ 2). Further, Plaintiff alleges that he had no new enemies

in Mule Creek Prison, and that he “was put into administrative

segregation solely to punish him for filing suit” and “was

transferred to punish him for filing a lawsuit.” (Id. ¶ 25)

(emphasis added). On a motion to dismiss, these allegations are

sufficient to state a claim that plaintiff was retaliated against

for filing a lawsuit, and that these actions did not serve any

legitimate correctional goal.

However, through this action, plaintiff seeks injunctive

relief or general damages against defendants in their individual

capacity. When a plaintiff seeks to hold an individual

personally liable for damages, the alleged wrongdoer must have

personally caused the violation. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/29/07 Page 3 of 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

4

633 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, plaintiff does not identify

in his complaint how each individual defendant retaliated against

him for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. Therefore,

plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to state a claim against

the individual defendants, and defendants’ motion to dismiss was

properly granted. 

However, in his opposition, plaintiff asserts that

defendants Campbell, Lattimore, and Cornish “formed together as a

classification committee panel,” which made a collective decision

“to transfer Sweet out of mere harassment and retaliation, by

manufacturing false allegations that an enemy situation

exist[ed].” (Pl.’s Opp’n, filed June 19, 2006, at 8-9). As

such, plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to allege

these claims against the individual defendant in his complaint.

Therefore, the magistrate judge’s findings are modified to

allow plaintiff to amend his complaint to add the specific

allegations against defendants Campbell, Lattimore, and Cornish

that were raised in his opposition. The court finds the

remainder of the findings and recommendations to be supported by

the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 2,

2007, are adopted in part;

2. Defendants’ April 27, 2006, motion to dismiss as to

defendants Campbell, Boyd, Lattimore, Purifoy, and

Cornish is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint

to add his allegations, raised in his opposition

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 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

5

against defendants Campbell, Lattimore, and Cornish. 

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint within 30

days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 29, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02703-FCD-EFB Document 49 Filed 03/29/07 Page 5 of 5