Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01786-1/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

CONFESSOR MONTALVO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CDCR PERSONNEL,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-01078-GSA-PC

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR 

VIOLATION OF RULE 8(a), WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

(ECF No. 1.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND 

PLAINTIFF A CIVIL COMPLAINT FORM

Concurrently with this order, the court issued a separate order severing some of 

Plaintiff’s claims from the Complaint, for lack of venue. This case now proceeds only with 

Plaintiff’s claims arising at Corcoran State Prison (CSP) in Corcoran, California. 

I. BACKGROUND

Confessor Montalvo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action, which is now before the court for screening. 

(ECF No. 1.) 

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 6.) 

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 10 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5
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

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

II. 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 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to 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)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id. 

III. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, in 

the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Complaint 

now proceeds only with Plaintiff’s claims arising from events occurring at CSP when Plaintiff 

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 10 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 5
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

was incarcerated there. From a review of the Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff names the 

following defendants for claims arising at CSP: Captain R. Chavez, CCI T. Galaviz, 

Lieutenant S. Pina, CCII C. Villarrial, Chief Deputy Warden J. D. Smith, Sergeant N. Holland, 

Social Worker D. Prince, Captain R. Broomfield, and CCII T. Campbell.

The gravamen of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that his rights were violated when he was 

validated as a gang associate using false information. Plaintiff requests monetary relief.

IV. RULE 8(a)

Under federal notice pleading, a complaint is required to contain Aa 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 A[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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 2955, 1964-65 (2007)). AWhile a plaintiff=s allegations are taken 

as true, courts Aare not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.@ Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, 

Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To 

state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must set forth sufficient factual allegations sufficient to 

state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. at 1950; Moss v. U.S. Secret 

Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of 

meeting this plausibility standard. Id. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to comport with Rule 8(a)'s requirement of Aa short and plain 

statement of the claim.@ Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The Complaint consists of 19 handwritten pages 

with 35 pages of attached exhibits. Plaintiff names 24 defendants and alleges claims arising at 

three different prisons in California: High Desert State Prison, Pelican Bay State Prison, and 

Corcoran State Prison. This case now proceeds only on Plaintiff’s claims arising at Corcoran 

State Prison. 

Plaintiff=s narrative does not succinctly allege facts against the named defendants, and it 

is difficult to decipher which events happened at which prison. Although the Federal Rules 

adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the 

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 10 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 5
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

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 

1984). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be dismissed for his violation of Rule 8(a).

Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty days, 

omitting any allegations or claims for relief arising out of events at HDSP or PBSP. The First 

Amended Complaint must only name defendants who violated Plaintiff’s rights during the time 

that he was incarcerated at CSP. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days to file the First Amended 

Complaint. 

The First Amended Complaint must demonstrate that each defendant personally

participated in the deprivation of his rights by their actions. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis 

added). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or 

her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. For clarification, Plaintiff may wish to set forth 

his allegations in chronological order and name each defendant, state how and where the 

defendant is employed, and describe what the defendant personally did to violate Plaintiff’s 

rights.

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

With respect to exhibits, while they are permissible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they are not 

necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The court strongly 

suggests to Plaintiff that exhibits should not be submitted where (1) they serve only to confuse 

the record and burden the court, or (2) they are intended as future evidence. If this action 

reaches a juncture at which the submission of evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., 

summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the opportunity at that time to submit his

evidence. Plaintiff is cautioned that it is not the duty of the court to look through all of his 

exhibits to determine whether or not he has stated claims cognizable under § 1983. Rather, the 

court looks to the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff=s complaint to determine whether or 

not Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983. 

///

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 10 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete 

in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “First Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed for violation of Rule 8(a), with leave to 

amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

First Amended Complaint in this case, only addressing allegations and claims 

arising at Corcoran State Prison during the time he was incarcerated there, as 

instructed by this order;

4. Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “First Amended Complaint” and 

refer to the case number 1:16-cv-01078-GSA-PC; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file a First Amended Complaint in this case within 30 days, 

the court shall dismiss this case for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 10 Filed 03/27/17 Page 5 of 5