Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02054/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02054-1/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

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

DOMINIC VA’SHON WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-2054 JAM 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 is 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 is 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 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 6
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 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 6
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).

Named as defendants are Warden Macomber, Associate Warden Eldridge, M. Hontz, D. 

Roth and R. Masterson. Plaintiff’s complaint contains six separate claims discussing plaintiff’s 

allegations against the defendants. However, the claims are not in chronological order. For this 

reason, it is difficult to understand plaintiff’s claims against each defendant. In addition, some of 

plaintiff’s claims do not name any defendant. For example, claim IV alleges that false paperwork 

was released in the hopes of bringing harm to plaintiff, but does not identify the defendant who 

allegedly released the false paperwork. For these reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave 

to amend.

In addition, it appears that plaintiff’s complaint may raise claims involving disciplinary or 

criminal convictions. For example, claim I appears to allege that defendant Wright filed false 

charges against plaintiff. 

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a 

plaintiff cannot bring a § 1983 claim arising out of alleged unconstitutional activities that resulted 

in his criminal conviction unless the conviction is first reversed, expunged, set aside, or otherwise 

called into question. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. If a plaintiff convicted of a crime seeks damages 

in a § 1983 suit, the district court must therefore “consider whether a judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of [her] conviction or sentence; if it would, the 

complaint must be dismissed.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In other words, a § 1983 claim is barred if 

the “plaintiff could prevail only by negating ‘an element of the offense of which he has been 

convicted.’” Cunningham v. Gates, 312 F.3d 1148, 1153–54 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Heck, 512 

U.S. at 487 n.6). This “favorable termination” rule also applies to prison disciplinary 

proceedings, if those proceedings resulted in the loss of good-time or behavior credits. Edwards 

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646–48 (1997).

////

Case 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 6
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

However, a plaintiff may still bring § 1983 claims challenging alleged unconstitutional 

actions if plaintiff's success on those claims would not necessarily invalidate a criminal 

conviction or sentence. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7 (explaining that, “[b]ecause of doctrines 

like independent source and inevitable discovery, and especially harmless error, such a § 1983 

action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiff's conviction was 

unlawful”) (citations omitted); see also Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (“[T]he relevant question is whether success in a subsequent 1983 suit would 

‘necessarily imply’ or ‘demonstrate’ the invalidity of the earlier conviction or sentence.”).

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall identify the allegedly false charges that 

were filed, identify the defendant who filed the false charges, discuss whether the charges 

resulted in a conviction and describe what punishment, if any, he received. 

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall also include a chronological statement 

describing his allegations against defendants. 

The amended complaint must also allege in specific terms how each defendant named is 

involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). 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).

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.

Case 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 6
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 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.” 

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

dismissal of this action.

Dated: December 8, 2016

Wr2054.14

Case 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 6
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

DOMINIC VA’SHON WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 16-cv-2054 JAM KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

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

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:16-cv-02054-JAM-KJN Document 8 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 6