Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04277/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04277-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IVAN V. CLEVELAND, H60545, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 14-4277 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a prisoner at the California Training Facility (CTF) and frequent

filer in federal court, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging

denial of adequate medical and mental health care as a result of overcrowding in

California’s state prisons. Plaintiff names Governor Brown and alleges that the

State of California has failed to comply with the remedial orders of the threejudge panel in the consolidated “overcrowding” class actions of Plata v. Brown

and Coleman v. Brown. Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief, namely 

release from custody. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which

prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

“is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

Case 3:14-cv-04277-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 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

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States

was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff’s claims against Governor Brown must be dismissed under the

authority of § 1915A(b) because plaintiff alleges no facts demonstrating that

Brown personally participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the

alleged denial of adequate medical and mental health care at issue. See Starr v.

Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for

establishing supervisory liability under § 1983); Ivey v. Bd. Regents of Univ. of

Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (liberal construction of pro se

complaint may not supply essential elements of a claim that were not pled). Nor

is there any indication that plaintiff can allege any such facts. Moreover, the

remedial orders in Plata/Coleman requiring the State of California to reduce

prison overcrowding to improve medical and mental health services to inmates

does not give plaintiff cognizable claims for release merely because he also

alleges deprivations arising from prison overcrowding. Cf. Pride v. Correa, 719

F.3d 1130, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2013) (state may invoke Plata/Coleman to preclude

duplicative actions for systemic relief, but inmates seeking individual medical

and mental health care may proceed as usual under § 1983). The release from

custody plaintiff seeks is not available under § 1983. See Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (precluding § 1983 claims which, if successful,

“would necessarily imply the invalidity” of an inmate’s conviction or sentence);

Case 3:14-cv-04277-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 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

see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (when state prisoner

seeks immediate or speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas

corpus).

Plaintiff nonetheless will be afforded an opportunity to amend to allege

facts in support of possible § 1983 claims of deliberate indifference to his serious

medical and mental heath needs, if he can, and to name the correct defendants

who participated in or failed to prevent the denial of adequate medical and mental

health care at issue. Plaintiff is reminded that a prison official is deliberately

indifferent only if he knows that a prisoner faces a substantial risk of serious

harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable steps to abate it. 

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend,

as indicated above, within 28 days of this order. The pleading must be simple

and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order

and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to

file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the

dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Feb. 27, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.14\Cleveland, I.14-4277.dwlta.wpd

Case 3:14-cv-04277-CRB Document 5 Filed 03/03/15 Page 3 of 3