Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01297/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01297-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG B. COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01297 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Craig B. Cooper (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on August 4, 2014, and it was 

transferred to this Court on August 14, 2014. He filed a First Amended Complaint on October 20, 

2014.

Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Arnold Schwarzenegger (former Governor), 

Edmund G. Brown (current Governor), Jeffrey A. Beard (current CDCR Secretary), Matthew Cate 

(former CDCR Secretary), Susan L. Hubbard (former director of CDCR’s Division of Adult 

Operations), Tanya Rothchild (former Chief of CDCR’s Classification Services Unit), Deborah 

Hysen (Chief Deputy Secretary, CDCR Executive Office of Facility Planning, Construction and 

Management), Chris Meyer (Senior Chief, CDCR Executive Office of Facility Planning, 

Construction and Management), J. Clark Kelso (Receiver of California Correctional Health Care 

Services), Dwight Winslow (former Statewide Medical Director for CDCR), Paul Brazelton 

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 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

(Warden Pleasant Valley State Prison), James A. Yates (former Warden Pleasant Valley State 

Prison), James Hartley (Warden of Avenal State Prison), and Felix Igbinosa (medical director at 

Pleasant Valley State Prison).

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, 

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 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

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. The events at issue occurred 

while he was incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, California.

Initial Complaint

Plaintiff’s August 4, 2014, initial complaint named Defendants Igbinosa, Yates, Cate and 

Schwarzenegger. He alleged that he contracted Valley Fever in June 2006 while incarcerated at 

PVSP. 

Plaintiff also explained that he had brought two prior actions, Cooper v. Yates, 1:09-cv00085-AWI-MJS and Cooper v. Yates, 1:12-cv-00039-LJO-DLB, both of which were dismissed 

with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff could not show 

that Defendants Igbinosa and Yates knew of a substantial risk of harm at the time Plaintiff contracted 

Valley Fever. He explains that he brings this new action because of “newly discovered evidence,” 

namely a court order in Plata v. Brown, No.C01-1351 TEH (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2013). Plaintiff 

believes that the court found that CDCR knew of the serious risk of harm to African-American 

inmates by 2004. 

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Yates was liable for his failure to act in 2004 to 2006, despite 

having the power to correct the safety issues. Similarly, he contends that Defendant Cate received 

notice in 2004 but failed to take corrective measures. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Igbinosa failed 

to take steps in 2004 to provide an adequate medical system. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Schwarzenegger knew of the Valley Fever problems but decided to build behind PVSP

nonetheless.

Based on these facts, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment and a violation of 

California Government Code section 830 (failure to warn of a dangerous condition).

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 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

First Amended Complaint

Sometime after the filing of his initial complaint, it appears that Plaintiff discovered a copy 

of a version of a complaint filed in Smith et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al., 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. 

Smith is a consolidated action involving over 100 represented inmate plaintiffs. Over 45 pages of 

Plaintiff’s 55-page pleading are photocopies of pages from the Smith complaint. Despite Plaintiff’s 

attempts to modify the complaint to fit an action involving a single Plaintiff, the photocopied pages 

often refer to “Plaintiffs.” In fact, although Plaintiff attempted to cover the other names, the actual 

causes of action are brought by inmates who are not parties to this action. For example, his Eighth 

Amendment claims are brought by “Plaintiffs Adam, Atzet, Aubrey.” ECF No. 13, at 47. His 

negligence claim is also brought by inmates who are not parties to this action. ECF No. 13, at 49. 

Therefore, Plaintiff has essentially taken a copy of a complaint in another action and 

attempted to insert it into this action. The result is a far-broader set of allegations and the addition of 

more than ten new Defendants, at least one of which does not appear to be related to Plaintiff’s 

claims in any way.1

Plaintiff also references his two prior actions, but states that “evidence, expert witnesses, 

counsel, and the rulings from the U.S. Central and Northern District Courts were not available” to 

Plaintiff prior to filing his first two actions. ECF No. 13, at 33.

Because the Court is dismissing the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, as 

discussed below, the Court will not summarize its allegations.

C. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s use of a complaint in another action has resulted in a pleading that does not 

specifically relate to Plaintiff and his claims. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint with 

leave to amend. In amending, Plaintiff is reminded that he may only allege facts that are related to 

his own rights, and he may only name Defendants who he contends are liable for those violations. 

The use of a complaint in another multi-plaintiff action results in the inclusion of allegations and 

parties that are not related to Plaintiff’s own circumstances.

 

1

 Defendant James Hartley is the Warden of Avenal State Prison, where Plaintiff has never been incarcerated.

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 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

Pro se litigants are entitled to have their pleadings liberally construed and to have any doubt 

resolved in their favor, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121-23 (9th Cir. 2012); Hebbe v. Pliler, 

627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010), but Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible to survive 

screening, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks 

omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that 

a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of 

satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

Until Plaintiff files an amended complaint that deals solely with his own situation, the Court 

will not determine whether Plaintiff states any claims for relief.2 

D. ORDER

The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar 

v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 

2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature 

of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 676-77. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without reference to 

the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

 

2

Plaintiff’s claims may also be precluded by the doctrine of res judicata, though the Court cannot make such a 

determination until his actual claims are clearly defined.

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 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

6

amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff’s amended complaint SHALL be limited to 25 pages, excluding 

exhibits; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim under section 1983.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01297-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 02/23/15 Page 6 of 6