Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00539/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-00539-0/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONZO RAYSHAWN PERKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. KENNEDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0539 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

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

§ 1915(a). ECF Nos. 2, 4. 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 for monthly payments 

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

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

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 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 

2 

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

§ 1915(b)(2). 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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 

“frivolous, malicious, or 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). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted). 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain 

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 2 of 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 

3 

cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976) (citation omitted), as well as construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted). 

III. Complaint 

The complaint alleges that defendants Kennedy, Delucchi, Fleshman, and Cueva violated 

plaintiff’s rights by subjecting him to excessive force. ECF No. 1. Specifically, plaintiff alleges 

that on March 1, 2021, he was suffering from depression and made multiple requests to Kennedy 

to speak with a clinician. Id. at 3. Upon making his fourth request to see a clinician, plaintiff told 

Kennedy that he was “not trying to cut on myself before I get help.” Id. Kennedy then replied 

“Oh you’re cutting on yourself” before leaving and returning with Delucci and Fleshman. Id. 

Fleshman and Kennedy then released a whole can of pepper spray into plaintiff’s cell. Id. When 

the door was opened, plaintiff—who was restrained—ran out of his cell and curled up on the 

floor, at which time Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman began beating him and telling him to think 

twice before filing complaints against the warden. Id. 

IV. Claims for Which a Response Will Be Required 

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged claims for excessive force and retaliation against 

Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (force is 

excessive if used “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm” (citation omitted)); Rhodes v. 

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (retaliation claim must include allegation that 

defendant took adverse action against plaintiff because of his protected conduct and that the 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 3 of 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 

4 

action chilled plaintiff’s exercise of First Amendment rights and lacked legitimate correctional 

goal). These defendants will be required to respond to the complaint if plaintiff chooses to 

proceed on the complaint without amendment. 

V. Failure to State a Claim 

“Liability under § 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant,” 

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980)), and “[v]ague 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) 

(citations omitted). Furthermore, “[t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983,” 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted), and plaintiff has not 

alleged facts showing either Cueva’s personal involvement in the violation or a causal connection 

between Cueva’s conduct and the violation, see Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)). It appears that Cueva has 

been named as a defendant based solely on his position as warden and because the other 

defendants retaliated against plaintiff for filing a complaint against Cueva. Neither of these is 

sufficient to state a claim for relief against Cueva. 

VI. Leave to Amend 

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that the complaint does not state 

cognizable claims against defendant Cueva. However, it appears that plaintiff may be able to 

allege facts to remedy this and he will be given the opportunity to amend the complaint if he 

desires. 

 Plaintiff may either (1) proceed forthwith to serve defendants Kennedy, Delucchi, and 

Fleshman on his claims that they assaulted him in retaliation for filing a complaint against the 

warden, and dismiss his claims against defendant Cueva, or (2) plaintiff may delay serving any 

defendant and amend the complaint. 

Plaintiff will be required to complete and return the attached notice advising the court how 

he wishes to proceed. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he will be given thirty days to 

file an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his claims against defendants 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 4 of 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 

5 

Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman without amending the complaint, the court will proceed to 

serve the complaint. A decision to go forward without amending the complaint will be 

considered a voluntarily dismissal without prejudice of all claims against defendant Cueva. 

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

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.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague 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) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, 

the original complaint 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. 

VII. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant 

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. That means you do not have to pay 

the entire filing fee now. You will pay it over time, out of your trust account. 

 Some of the allegations in the complaint state claims against the defendants and some do 

not. You have sufficiently alleged claims for excessive force and retaliation against defendants 

Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman. You have not stated any claim for relief against Cueva 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 5 of 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 

6 

because you have not alleged any facts regarding what Cueva did or did not do that you believe 

violated your rights. 

You have a choice to make. You may either (1) proceed immediately on your claims 

against Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman and voluntarily dismiss the other claims, or (2) try to 

amend the complaint. If you want to go forward without amending the complaint, you will be 

voluntarily dismissing without prejudice all claims against Cueva. If you choose to file a first 

amended complaint, it must include all claims you want to bring. Once an amended complaint is 

filed, the court will not look at any information in the original complaint. Any claims and 

information not in the first amended complaint will not be considered. You must complete 

the attached notification showing what you want to do and return it to the court. Once the court 

receives the notice, it will issue an order telling you what you need to do next (i.e. file an 

amended complaint or wait for defendants to be served). 

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) 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 

appropriate agency filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s allegations against defendant Cueva do not state claims for which relief can 

be granted. 

4. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on his claims against defendants 

Kennedy, Delucchi, and Fleshman as set forth in Section IV above, or to amend the complaint. 

5. Within fourteen days of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened complaint or 

whether he wants to file a first amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, the court 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 6 of 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 

7 

will assume that he is choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and will recommend 

dismissal without prejudice of the claims against defendant Cueva. 

DATED: November 23, 2022 

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 7 of 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ALONZO RAYSHAWN PERKINS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. KENNEDY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-0539 AC P 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE ON HOW TO 

PROCEED 

 Check one: 

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on his claims against defendants Kennedy, 

Delucchi, and Fleshman without amending the complaint. Plaintiff understands that by 

going forward without amending the complaint he is voluntarily dismissing without 

prejudice all of his claims against defendant Cueva pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a). 

_____ Plaintiff wants to amend the complaint. 

DATED:_______________________ 

 

 Alonzo Rayshawn Perkins 

 Plaintiff pro se

Case 2:22-cv-00539-AC Document 7 Filed 11/28/22 Page 8 of 8