Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00922/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00922-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Michael Vincent Cisneros is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on June 16, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff shall be given the opportunity to file 

an amended complaint curing the deficiencies described by the Court in this order. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

MICHAEL VINCENT CISNEROS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GRAHAM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00922-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL RULES OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 9
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

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s complaint is eighty-three pages in length and is accompanied with exhibits. Plaintiff 

raises several different allegations against several different individuals, including sexual assault, 

excessive force, retaliation, unlawful detention and conspiracy. 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

[Plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must be simple, concise, and 

direct.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(1). A party must state its claims or defenses in 

numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). “[E]ach claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must 

be stated in a separate count.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b).

Where the factual elements of a cause of action are present, but are scattered throughout the 

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 2 of 9
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

complaint and are not organized into a short, plain statement of the claim, dismissal for failure to 

satisfy Rule 8 if proper. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining 

complaint should set forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail 

to provide notice to defendants). 

The function of the complaint is not to list every single fact relating to Plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff’s eighty-three page complaint sets forth a multiple of claim (some related and some 

unrelated) against a multitude of Defendants. It is so mired in extraneous facts, various issues related 

and unrelated, and legal arguments that it fails to comply with Rule 8(a). Some of Plaintiff’s claim 

may be cognizable under 1983, but it is not the function of the court to attempt to find them in a 

complaint that is in violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff is advised that the submission of evidence, by way of exhibits, is premature at this 

point in the proceedings as Plaintiff is only required to state a prima facie claim for relief via his 

factual allegations. Thus, in amending his complaint, Plaintiff need only state concisely the facts upon 

which he alleges a defendant has violated his constitutional rights. If Plaintiff feels compelled to 

submit exhibits with an amended complaint, he is advised that such exhibits must be attached to the 

amended pleading and must be incorporated by reference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). With regard to 

exhibits that are properly attached and incorporated, Plaintiff is cautioned that it is the Court’s duty to 

evaluate the factual allegations within a complaint, not to wade through exhibits, to determine whether 

cognizable claims have been stated.

Further, if Plaintiff attaches exhibits to an amended complaint, each exhibit must be 

specifically referenced. For example, Plaintiff must state “see Exhibit A” or something similar in 

order to direct the Court to the specific exhibit Plaintiff is referencing. Further, if the exhibit consists 

of more than one page, Plaintiff must reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. “see Exhibit A, 

page 3”). Finally, Plaintiff is advised that the Court must assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are 

true. Therefore, it is generally unnecessary for Plaintiff to submit exhibits in support of the allegations 

in a complaint. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to apply to the 

claims. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 3 of 9
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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A basic lawsuit is a single claim against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

18(a) allows a plaintiff to add multiple claims to the lawsuit when they are against the same defendant. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join multiple defendants to a lawsuit 

where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions” and 

“any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated 

claims that involve different defendants must be brought in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). This rule is not only intended to avoid confusion that arises out of 

bloated lawsuits, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees for their lawsuits and 

prevent prisoners from circumventing the three strikes rule under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

The Court advises Plaintiff that each claim that is raised in his second amended complaint must 

be permitted by either Rule 18 or Rule 20. Plaintiff may state a single claim against a single 

defendant. Plaintiff may then add any additional claims to his action that are against the same 

defendant under Rule 18. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18. Plaintiff may also add any additional claims against 

other defendants if those claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions 

as his original claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Any attempt to join claims that are not permitted by 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will result in those claims being dismissed as improperly joined.

B. Sexual Assault

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in penal institutions. Whether 

a specific act constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is measured by “the evolving standards of 

decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). 

Sexual harassment or abuse of an inmate by a corrections officer is a violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2012); Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 

1187, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (“In the simplest and most absolute of terms ... prisoners [have a clearly 

established Eighth Amendment right] to be free from sexual abuse. . . .”); see also Women Prisoners 

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 4 of 9
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

of the Dist. of Columbia Dep’t of Corr. v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634, 665 (D.D.C. 1994) 

(“[U]nsolicited touching of ... prisoners’ [genitalia] by prison employees are ‘simply not part of the 

penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society’” (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 

511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 93 F.3d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 

In evaluating a prisoner’s claim, courts consider whether “the officials act[ed] with a 

sufficiently culpable state of mind” and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively “harmful enough” 

to establish a constitutional violation. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8.

C. Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects prisoners 

not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of confinement. 

Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 

847 (1994) and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)) (quotation marks omitted). While 

conditions of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they must not involve the 

wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (citing Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347) 

(quotation marks omitted). Thus, conditions which are devoid of legitimate penological purpose or 

contrary to evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society violate the 

Eighth Amendment. Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks and citations omitted); Hope v. 

Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 737 (2002); Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, 

clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety, Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 

2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted), but not every injury that a prisoner sustains while in 

prison represents a constitutional violation, Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045 (quotation marks omitted). To 

maintain an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must show that prison officials were deliberately 

indifferent to a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847; Thomas v. 

Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 2010); Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 812-14 (9th Cir. 

2009); Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045; Johnson, 217 F.3d at 731; Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th 

Cir. 1998).

///

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 5 of 9
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

D. Excessive Force

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from 

the use of excessive physical force. Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37-38 (2010) (per curiam); 

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992). What is necessary to show sufficient harm under the 

Eighth Amendment depends upon the claim at issue, with the objective component being contextual 

and responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 (quotation marks and 

citations omitted). For excessive force claims, the core judicial inquiry is whether the force was 

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause 

harm. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7) (quotation marks omitted). 

Not every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. Wilkins, 

559 U.S. at 37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) (quotation marks omitted). Necessarily excluded from 

constitutional recognition is the de minimis use of physical force, provided that the use of force is not 

of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-38 (quoting Hudson, 503 

U.S. at 9-10) (quotations marks omitted). In determining whether the use of force was wanton and 

unnecessary, courts may evaluate the extent of the prisoner’s injury, the need for application of force, 

the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by 

the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 

503 U.S. at 7 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

While the absence of a serious injury is relevant to the Eighth Amendment inquiry, it does not 

end it. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates 

contemporary standards of decency. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9) 

(quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is the use of force rather than the resulting injury which ultimately 

counts. Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37.

E. Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to petition 

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 

802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation 

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 6 of 9
7

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

entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a [government] 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); accord

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 

(9th Cir. 2009).

F. Due Process/Placement and Retention in Suicide Watch

The Due Process Clause protects Plaintiff against the deprivation of liberty without the 

procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 

(2005). To state a claim, Plaintiff must first identify the interest at stake. Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 221. 

Liberty interests may arise from the Due Process Clause itself or from state law. Id. The Due Process 

Clause does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in avoiding more adverse conditions of 

confinement, and under state law, the existence of a liberty interest created by prison regulations is 

determined by focusing on the nature of the condition of confinement at issue. Id. at 221-23 (citing 

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 481-484 (1995)) (quotation marks omitted). Liberty interests created 

by prison regulations are generally limited to freedom from restraint which imposes atypical and 

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Wilkinson, 545 

U.S. at 221 (citing Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484) (quotation marks omitted); Myron v. Terhune, 476 F.3d 

716, 718 (9th Cir. 2007). 

G. Conspiracy

To state a claim for conspiracy under section 1983, Plaintiff must show the existence of an 

agreement or a meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights, and an actual deprivation of 

those constitutional rights. Avalos v. Baca, 596 F.3d 583, 592 (9th Cir. 2010); Franklin v. Fox, 312 

F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2001).

H. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Linkage and Doe Defendants

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); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 7 of 9
8

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

2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed under a 

theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist some 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); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

Plaintiff references Does 1 through 100 in the complaint but fails to attribute any wrongful 

conduct on their part. In order to state a claim against an individual, even those identified as only a 

Doe, Plaintiff must allege facts that these Defendants personally violated, or knowingly directed a 

violation of, Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by 

adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (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. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. There is no conceivable reason why Plaintiff should need more than twentyfive pages to identify his claims and the specific facts that support those claims. Accordingly, absent 

further order of this Court for good cause showing, Plaintiff’s amended complaint, if he chooses to file 

one, may not exceed twenty-five pages in length. 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes 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 superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

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-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 8 of 9
9

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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed June 16, 2014, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

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

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00922-SAB Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 9 of 9