Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01868/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01868-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENT ADLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. SIGSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:13-cv-01868-SKO (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, PURSUANT TO RULE 

8(A)

(Doc. 1)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT TO 

EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE PAGES

I. Compliance with Rule 8(a)

Plaintiff Brent Adler, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2013. The events at issue took place when 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. 

Plaintiff’s fifty page complaint violates Rule 8(a), which calls for “a short and plain statement of 

the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), supported with “simple, concise, and direct” allegations, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(d)(1). 

Plaintiff is pursuing claims against seventeen named defendants and five Doe defendants, 

and his constitutional claims arise out of retaliation and denial of access to the courts. The Court 

will provide Plaintiff with the following applicable legal standards to assist him in setting forth 

those allegations which are relevant and which link each defendant to actions or omissions which 

violated Plaintiff’s rights.

Case 1:13-cv-01868-LJO-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/31/14 Page 1 of 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

2

II. Legal Standards

A. Causal Connection Between Defendants and Violations Required

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009); 

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 v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist 

some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-

75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

B. Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to 

petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 

1104 (9th Cir. 2011); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham 

v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). 

“Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic 

elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) 

because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate 

correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v. 

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva, 658 at 1104; Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 

1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).

C. Access to the Courts

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 

518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 

2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for 

relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to 

Case 1:13-cv-01868-LJO-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/31/14 Page 2 of 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

3

contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th 

Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132 

S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, pursuant to Rule 8;

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

amended complaint not to exceed twenty-five pages; and

3. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:13-cv-01868-LJO-SKO Document 5 Filed 12/31/14 Page 3 of 3