Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00883/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00883-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff does not identify the specific institutions at which said defendants are

employed.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR J. BRAVO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. HEWCHUCK, et al.,

Defendants ___________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0883 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On February 9, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Mens Colony (“CMC”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against eight individuals employed in California prisons.1

 On December

11, 2006, the Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, and on March 12, 2007, 

plaintiff filed a timely amended complaint. The Court now reviews the amended complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Section 1915A requires a federal court to engage in a preliminary screening of cases

in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer, or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Federal courts must dismiss a case filed in

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 47 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 if the court, at any time, determines the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

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

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1)

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

In the original complaint, plaintiff named eight defendants and alleged that he had

been subjected to excessive force in the course of his being placed in a van for transportation

to another prison, at which he suffered further harm. The Court found plaintiff’s allegations

conceivably could state a claim for the violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (See

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend, filed December 11, 2006.) Because plaintiff made

all of said allegations against “defendants” collectively, however, and did not allege what any

individual defendant actually did, the Court found the claims were not cognizable. (See id.) 

The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend the complaint in order to allege how each such

defendant personally was involved in the violations plaintiff alleged. The Court cautioned

plaintiff:

 The amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not

incorporate by reference any parts of the original complaint; plaintiff must

include in the amended complaint all the allegations and claims he wishes to

present. If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity

with this order, this case will be dismissed.”

(See id.)

In his amended complaint, plaintiff does not make the allegations of excessive force

he made in the original complaint, nor does he name all of the eight individual defendants he

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 47 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

had named in the original complaint. Rather plaintiff brings his amended complaint against 

two of those defendants, namely, Dr. Hewchuck, and Warden A.P. Kane (“Warden Kane”),

both CMC officials, and alleges they authorized an improper transfer of plaintiff from a

Level II prison to a Level III prison. 

As plaintiff has not included the claims from the original complaint in his amended

complaint, let alone cured the deficiencies in such claims, the claims contained in the original

complaint will be dismissed. Further, plaintiff’s new allegations that Dr. Hewchuck and

Warden Kane improperly authorized his transfer to another prison fail to state a cognizable

claim for relief. Prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular

institution, and, consequently, a claim based on an improper transfer to another prison does

not allege the violation of a constitutional right. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238,

244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 223-27 (1976). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

new claims likewise will be dismissed. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 9, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00883-MMC Document 47 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 3