Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01340/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01340-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY E. TOMBS, No. 2:13-cv-1340-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

JORDAN KEITH WALLACE,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint

(Doc. 22).

As set forth in previous orders, the court is required to screen complaints brought

by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that

complaints contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

1

Case 2:13-cv-01340-MCE-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 5
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

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and

directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the

plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129

(9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts

by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy

this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by

law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff fails to state his claims with any more clarity than he did in his first

amended complaint. They remain vague and difficult to decipher. In his first amended

complaint, plaintiff made vague allegations as to lack of medical treatment, use of excessive

force, retaliation, and tampering with mail. He continues to make the same allegations in his

second amended complaint, but offers no further clarity. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s allegations are so vague and conclusory that the court is unable to

determine whether the claims are frivolous, fanciful, or if the complaint fails to state a claim for

relief. Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair

notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support his claims. Id. His amended complaint fails to cure the defects outlined in the court’s

prior order and fails to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Plaintiff was informed as to what is required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Plaintiff was told that he must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of

the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436

2

Case 2:13-cv-01340-MCE-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 5
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

U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Vague and conclusory allegations

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). He was further instructed

as to what was required to state a claim for excessive force in violation of the Eighth

Amendment, retaliation, and mail tampering as related to his First Amendment rights.

Plaintiff failed to follow the court’s instructions as to what was required to state a

claim. He also failed to file an amended complaint that meets the pleading standards required by

Rule 8. As stated above, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to “plead a

short and plain statement of the elements of his or her claim, identifying the transaction or

occurrence giving rise to the claim and the elements of the prima facie case.” Bautista v. Los

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to

sufficiently state his claims and supporting facts. In addition, he appears to continue to attempt

to assert unrelated claims against unrelated parties, in violation of Rule 18. 

Plaintiff’s only possible claim is against defendant Wallace for excessive force. 

However, as the court previously explained, the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the

conditions under which the prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth

Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509

U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . .

embodies broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh

and restrictive. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison

officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and

personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official

violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the

3

Case 2:13-cv-01340-MCE-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/16 Page 3 of 5
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

official’s act or omission must be so serious such that it results in the denial of the minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2) subjectively, the prison official must have acted

unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 

Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison official must have a “sufficiently culpable

mind.” See id. 

When prison officials stand accused of using excessive force, the core judicial

inquiry is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or

maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992);

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). The “malicious and sadistic” standard, as

opposed to the “deliberate indifference” standard applicable to most Eighth Amendment claims,

is applied to excessive force claims because prison officials generally do not have time to reflect

on their actions in the face of risk of injury to inmates or prison employees. See Whitley, 475

U.S. at 320-21. In determining whether force was excessive, the court considers the following

factors: (1) the need for application of force; (2) the extent of injuries; (3) the relationship

between the need for force and the amount of force used; (4) the nature of the threat reasonably

perceived by prison officers; and (5) efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. 

See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The absence of an emergency situation is probative of whether force

was applied maliciously or sadistically. See Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1528 (9th Cir.

1993) (en banc). The lack of injuries is also probative. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7-9. Finally,

because the use of force relates to the prison’s legitimate penological interest in maintaining

security and order, the court must be deferential to the conduct of prison officials. See Whitley,

475 U.S. at 321-22. 

Plaintiff provides no further information as to the situation when he alleges

defendant Wallace body slammed him against a wall. He fails to allege what occurred during

this incident, what defendant Wallace’s motivation was for using force, and whether plaintiff

suffered any injuries as a result of the force. Plaintiff has failed to heed the court’s instruction

4

Case 2:13-cv-01340-MCE-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/16 Page 4 of 5
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

and provide the court with the necessary information for the court to evaluate this claim. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim. It is up to plaintiff to

formulate and articulate his claim, not for the court or the defendants to try to decipher what

claims plaintiff has. Plaintiff was given specific and detailed information as to what was

required in order to state a claim. He has failed to follow the court’s direction to cure the defects

in his complaint. It appears that plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to amend the complaint in

which to state a claim. Thus, further leave to amend should be denied.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of

the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s second

amended complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim, without further leave to amend, and

this case be closed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 12, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 2:13-cv-01340-MCE-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/13/16 Page 5 of 5