Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00570/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00570-1/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Gregory E. Wooten (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As required, the Court screened and 

dismissed Plaintiff’s original complaint for failure to state a claim on May 8, 2013, and granted 

Plaintiff leave to amend. (Doc. 7). Having read and considered Plaintiff’s timely amended complaint, 

(Doc. 8), the Court ORDERS that the amended complaint be STRICKEN. 

In the May 8, 2013, order (Doc. 7), the Court explicitly advised Plaintiff that he “SHALL set 

forth a “concise statement of facts in his amended complaint to explain the “who, what, when, where, 

how and why” of his claim such to demonstrate why he believes a state actor violated his 

constitutional rights.” (Doc. 7 at 3) (emphasis and quotations in original). The Court additionally 

explained the mandates of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), specifically noting that Plaintiff must present more 

than labels and conclusions in his complaint in order to state a cognizable claim. Id. at 2. Finally, 

the Court set forth the legal standards required to present a First Amendment claim of retaliation and 

GREGORY E. WOOTEN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00570 – LJO - JLT (PC)

ORDER STRIKING THE AMENDED 

COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a) AND THE COURT’S ORDER

(Doc. 8)

Case 1:13-cv-00570-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 3
2

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

an Eighth Amendment claim of inadequate medical care. Id. at 6-8.

At present, Plaintiff submits a first amended complaint replete with misplaced capital letters, 

misused semicolons, and rambling sentences, that make it difficult to decipher his cause of action. 

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the amended complaint, and notes that Plaintiff has set forth 

conclusory allegations unsupported by a “plain and concise statement” of the facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a). For example, Plaintiff claims that Officer Delgado disposed of Plaintiff’s legal mail1and that he 

“conspired to torment” Plaintiff without explaining how he knows this is the case. (Doc. 8 at 4). 

Plaintiff seemingly wishes the Court to grant him relief without requiring him to comply with the 

precepts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) of which he was previously advised; this the Court will not do.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 8) is STRICKEN for failure to comply 

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and the Court’s May 8, 2013, order. (Doc. 7). 

ORDER

Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 8) is STRICKEN;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED 21 days from the date of service of this Order to file a first 

amended complaint attempting to cure the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

screening order. Plaintiff is advised that should he file a first amended complaint, it 

 

1

In addition to the claims of retaliation and inadequate medical care, previously discussed in the Court’s order 

dated May 8, 2013, (Doc. 7), Plaintiff now appears to present a claim of denial of access to the courts and a conspiracy

claim. 

Plaintiff’s reference to Officer Delgado’s tampering with his legal mail implicates a right of access to the Courts. 

Should he wish to allege such a claim in his first amended complaint, Plaintiff is advised that his right of access to the 

courts is limited to the filing of direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil rights actions. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 

343, 346, 354 (1996). Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration or hindrance of “a litigating 

opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from the loss of a suit that cannot now be tried (backwardlooking claim). Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15 (2002). In either scenario, a plaintiff must allege actual 

injury. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351-53.

With regard to the conspiracy claim Error! Main Document Only.brought pursuant to section 1983, a plaintiff 

must “allege [some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” Buckey v. County of Los 

Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 

1988). To state such a claim, a plaintiff must show (1) a meeting of the defendants’ minds to violate the plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights, and (2) an actual deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Fearence v. Schulteis, Case No. 

1:08-CV-00615-LJO, 2013 WL 1314038 * 3 (E.D. Cal. 2013). Plaintiff must allege that defendants conspired or acted 

jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Sykes v. State of California, 497 F.2d 

197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974). Each defendant is not required to know the exact details of the course of action, “but each 

participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy.” Fearance, 2013 WL at 3 (internal citations and 

quotations omitted).

Case 1:13-cv-00570-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 3
3

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

SHALL be no longer than 20 pages. This 20-page limitation includes attached exhibits; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff the form complaint for use in a civil 

rights action; and 

4. Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to comply with this Order and the May 8, 2013, 

Order (Doc. 7) will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00570-LJO-JLT Document 9 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 3