Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01649-0/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

OBIE LEE CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMOND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-1649 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 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 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

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 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

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).

Plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat difficult to understand. It appears that plaintiff is 

alleging that defendants failed to properly process his administrative grievances. It also appears 

that plaintiff may be alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights and/or the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by failing to accommodate his disability. 

Prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance 

procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855 

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Even the non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to 

properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise 

constitutional concerns. Mann, 855 F.2d at 640; see also, Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 

(8th Cir. 1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991). A failure to process a grievance, 

without more, does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. Therefore, to 

the extent plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly 

process his administrative grievances, this claim is dismissed as legally frivolous.

Plaintiff’s claims alleging that defendants failed to accommodate his disability are vague 

and conclusory. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must clearly describe his disability 

and how defendants failed to accommodate it. 

Title II of the ADA “prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability.” Lovell v. 

Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). In order to state a claim, a plaintiff must show 

that: (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability”; (2) he was either excluded from 

participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was 

otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion, denial of benefits, or 

discrimination was by reason of his disability. McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 

(9th Cir. 2004). If plaintiff raises an ADA claim in the amended complaint, he should make sure 

that his factual allegations comply with this legal standard.

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim predicated on the denial of medical care, a 

plaintiff must establish that he had a serious medical need and that the defendant’s response to 

that need was deliberately indifferent. Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006); see

also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A serious medical need exists if the failure to 

treat the condition could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain. Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096. Deliberate indifference may be shown by the denial, 

delay, or intentional interference with medical treatment, or by the way in which medical care is 

provided. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988).

To act with deliberate indifference, a prison official must both be aware of facts from 

which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also 

draw the inference. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Thus, a defendant is liable if 

he knows that plaintiff faces “a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing 

to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Id. at 847. A physician need not fail to treat an inmate 

altogether in order to violate that inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. Ortiz v. City of Imperial, 

884 F.2d 1312, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). A failure to competently treat a serious 

medical condition, even if some treatment is prescribed, may constitute deliberate indifference in 

a particular case. Id.

If plaintiff’s amended complaint raises an Eighth Amendment claim, he should refer to the 

legal standard set forth above. 

In addition, 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).

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

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.

Finally, the undersigned observes that plaintiff’s complaint is 30 pages. Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that pleadings, such as complaints, contain short and plain

statements showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. It is clear that plaintiff can state his 

claims in a complaint significantly shorter than 30 pages. For that reason, the undersigned orders 

that plaintiff’s amended complaint may be no longer than ten pages. 

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:

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.” 

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

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

this action.

Dated: August 24, 2015

cr1649.14

Case 2:15-cv-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 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

OBIE LEE CRISP, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDMOND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-1649 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-01649-TLN-KJN Document 4 Filed 08/24/15 Page 7 of 7