Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02668/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02668-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO CESAR IBANEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2668 RRB EFB P

vs.

F. JAQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights

violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 17, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

with leave to amend. On August 15, 2007, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants John Doe, M. Wright, M.

Townsend and D. Patton for housing him and releasing him to the recreational yard with active

gang members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss or D. Bruce.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants M. Wright, M. Townsend and D.

Patton and pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any 

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

2

defendant and attempt again to state a cognizable claim against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez,

M. Foss and D. Bruce.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss and D. Bruce, he has 30 days so to do. He is not

obligated to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants M. Wright, M. Townsend and

D. Patton, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must

return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe

plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez,

M. Foss and D. Bruce without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff

contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their

agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

3

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and

directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a

claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true

(even if doubtful in fact).” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995,

1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff alleges that M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss and D. Bruce reviewed the results of a

ten-month investigation into plaintiff’s gang affiliation, determined that he was in good standing

with the Southern Mexicans, removed him from protective housing and transferred him to High

Desert State Prison. He further alleges that he objected to his transfer. Officials at High Desert

State Prison refused to place plaintiff in segregated housing, and he was attacked by Southern

Mexicans. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates a cause of action against

persons who deprive any individual of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the

United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988).

As explained in the court’s July 17, 2007, order, to state a claim prison officials violated their

Eighth Amendment duty to protect a prisoner from violence at the hands of guards or other

prisoners, plaintiff must allege that an identified state actor with responsibility for ensuring

plaintiff’s safety knew plaintiff faced substantial risk of serious harm but deliberately

disregarded the risk by failing to take reasonable measures, resulting in avoidable, objectively

serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994). 

Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss or D. Bruce do

not satisfy this standard.

Plaintiff must eliminate from his pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

4

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996)

(affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El

v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a third amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

5

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendants

M. Wright, M. Townsend and D. Patton. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss and D. Bruce are dismissed

with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint

to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend

his complaint.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state a cognizable claim

against John Doe. However, an unidentified defendant cannot be served. Therefore, to proceed

against him, plaintiff must discover his true identity and file a fourth-amended complaint

identifying him. In due course, the court will issue a discovery and scheduling order, which will

include the time for discovering the identity of this defendant and filing an amended compliant.

3. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants M. Wright, M. Townsend and D. Patton. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the

Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed

August 15, 2007, three USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants M.

Wright, M. Townsend and D. Patton. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed

USM-285 forms, and four copies of the endorsed August 15, 2007, complaint. The court will

transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

6

Defendants M. Wright, M. Townsend and D. Patton will be required to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will

construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective

claims against defendants M. Miller, F. Jaquez, M. Foss and D. Bruce for failure to state a claim.

Dated: December 4, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIO CESAR IBANEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2668 RRB EFB P

vs.

F. JAQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 3 completed forms USM-285 

 4 copies of the August 15, 2007 

 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02668-KJM -EFB Document 13 Filed 12/05/07 Page 7 of 7