Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01605-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE McCREA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF McCOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1605 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing 

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will 

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 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

2

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 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

3

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his due process rights by failing 

to search the cell prior to plaintiff being moved into the cell, resulting in the loss of 360 days of 

good time credits based on the rules violation imposed for possession of weapons discovered in a 

subsequent cell search. Plaintiff contends that prison regulations require correctional officers to 

properly inspect cells before another inmate is moved into the cell. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 

§ 3287(a). 

Prisoners cannot be entirely deprived of their constitutional rights, but their rights may be 

diminished by the needs and objectives of the institutional environment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 

418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, 

so a prisoner is not afforded the full panoply of rights in such proceedings. Id. at 556. But a 

prison disciplinary proceeding may result in the loss of good time credits, due process requires 

that the prisoner receive: (1) advance written notice of at least 24 hours of the disciplinary 

charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to 

call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by 

the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Superintendent 

v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1984)); Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-67. In addition, due process requires 

that the decision be supported by “some evidence.” Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. The requirement of 

“some evidence” sets a low bar, consistent with the recognition that assignment of inmates within 

prisons is “essentially a matter of administrative discretion,” subject to “minimal legal 

limitations.” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, plaintiff states that he is not challenging the rules violation he sustained for 

possession of the weapons, but focuses instead on defendants’ alleged failure to comply with 

§ 3287(a), which he alleges violates his due process rights. However, the Due Process Clause 

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 3 of 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

4

requires only that prisoners be afforded those procedures mandated by Wolff and its progeny; it 

does not require that prisons comply with their own, more generous procedures. See Walker v 

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1420 (9th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. Connor, 515 

U.S. 472 (1995). A prisoner’s right to due process is violated “only if he [is] not provided with 

process sufficient to meet the Wolff standard.” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1420. 

Thus, plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim based on defendants’ alleged 

failure to comply with § 3287. It is unclear whether plaintiff can amend to state a cognizable civil 

rights claim. A state prisoner’s § 1983 claim is not cognizable if success on the claim would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of a still-valid sentence or disciplinary finding that affects the 

length of his incarceration. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Consequently, a 

prisoner’s § 1983 challenge to disciplinary hearing procedures is barred if judgment in his favor 

would necessarily imply the invalidity of the resulting loss of good-time credits. Edwards v. 

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646 (1997) (dismissing § 1983 action for declaratory relief and monetary 

damages because successful challenge to procedures used in disciplinary hearing would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of the punishment imposed). See also Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 

U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005) (explaining that “a state prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred (absent prior 

invalidation) no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the 

prisoner’s suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings), if success in 

that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration” (emphasis 

omitted)). Put another way, a § 1983 claim is barred if the “plaintiff could prevail only by 

negating ‘an element of the offense of which he has been convicted.’” Cunningham v. Gates, 312 

F.3d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.6). However, when the 

§ 1983 claim does not necessarily implicate the underlying disciplinary action (or criminal 

conviction), it may proceed. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 754-55 (2004) (Heck

does not bar a prisoner’s § 1983 suit when a favorable verdict would not affect his disciplinary 

conviction); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (favorable termination rule 

does not apply to prison disciplinary sanctions that do not necessarily affect the fact or length of a 

prisoner’s confinement).

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 4 of 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

5

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint fail to state a claim for relief. The 

court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the 

complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, 

the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Id. 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. Id.; 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. 

Ivey v. Bd. 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 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. 

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.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 5 of 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

6

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

Dated: August 28, 2015

/mccr1605.14

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 6 of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE McCREA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF McCOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1605 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01605-JAM-KJN Document 5 Filed 08/28/15 Page 7 of 7