Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00007/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00007-7/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

CURTIS THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALTAMERANO, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-YNP PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION

(Doc. 17)

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff Curtis Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff names Altamerando,

R. Reyes, and K. Clark as defendants. Forthe reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section

1983. The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed with

prejudice.

I. Screening Requirement

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

1

Case 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

27

28

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).

In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading

standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Under Rule 8(a), 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). “[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual

allegations,’ but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

U.S. at 570). “[A] complaint [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s

liability . . . ‘stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Further, although a court must accept as true all factual

allegations contained in a complaint, a court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. 

Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on January 2, 2008. (Doc. #1.) On May

20, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The

Court found that Plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state any claims upon which relief can be

granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint. On August 6,

2009, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (Doc. #17.) This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s

first amended complaint.

B. Factual Background

Plaintiff does not provide any clear factual allegations in his first amended complaint.

Plaintiff has filed a form complaint for civil rights actions under section 1983. Under the section

titled “Statement of Claim,” Plaintiff writes:

2

Case 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

27

28

I have or should I say fall under crontic[sic] care of the medical

procedure at Corcoran and esp Sacramento. Iwould be going to court

to have my claim heard in court in a trial. I’m being denied PLU

deadline on court orderto obtain mylegal documents. I am disability. 

I can’t see due to medical issue.

Underthe section titled “Relief,” Plaintiff writes “I have filed into your court this 1983 civil standard

claim in order to seek the relief that I must seek into your court for the proper relief into this matter

being presented.”

III. Discussion

The Court is unable to discern what Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants did and what

Plaintiff’s legal claims are. Plaintiff does not allege what Defendants did or what injuries Plaintiff

suffered. Plaintiff’s amended complaint contains nothing more than vague statements about medical

care and being unable to obtain legal documents. Plaintiff does not explain how any Defendants

interfered with his medical care or how anyDefendants hindered Plaintiff’s ability to obtain his legal

documents.

In its previous screening order, the Court noted that the allegations in Plaintiff’s original

complaint were also difficult to discern. (Order Dismissing Compl., with Leave to File Am. Compl.

Within Thirty Days 2:15.) Plaintiff’s original complaint made vague allegations about an accident

with a truck and Plaintiff’s examination by a doctor. (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff requested that the Court

“make the Defendants take away (rescind) their allegations of my attempt to defraud the state’s

insurance carrier.” (Compl. 3.) Plaintiff attached a number of documents to his original complaint

as exhibits which were related to Plaintiff’s inmate grievances about correctional officers labeling

Plaintiff as a snitch and endangering his life. (Compl. 4-18.)

The Court’s previous screening order provided Plaintiff with the relevant standards for

stating a claim under section 1983. (Order DismissingCompl. 2:27-3:22.) Plaintiff was specifically

informed that he must file a complaint that explains how Defendants deprived Plaintiff of rights

secured by the Constitution or other federal law. (Order DismissingCompl. 2:27-3:1.) Plaintiff was

also given the relevant legal standards for stating a claim under section 1983 for deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. (Order Dismissing Compl. 3:9-22.) Plaintiff was also told

///

3

Case 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

27

28

that he must allege facts that show how each individual defendant engaged in conduct that violated

Plaintiff’s rights. (Order Dismissing Compl. 3:24-26.)

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is less comprehensible than his original complaint.

Plaintiff has not meaningfully addressed any of the deficiencies identified by the Court in its

previous screening order. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are not capable of being

cured by granting further leave to amend. The Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s claims be

dismissed with prejudice.

IV. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and finds that it does not state

any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. Plaintiff was previously informed

of the deficiencies in his original complaint and informed of the basic standards for stating a claim

under section 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to meaningfully address the

deficiencies previously identified by the Court. As such, the Court finds that the deficiencies in

Plaintiff’s claims are not capable of being cured by granting further leave to amend. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (“district court should grant leave to amend even if no

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly

be cured by the allegation of other facts”); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987)

(pro se litigant entitled to an opportunityto amend the complaint to overcome anydeficiencies unless

it clearly appears from the complaint that the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint

be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state any claims upon which relief can be granted under

section 1983.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any partymay file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served

and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file

4

Case 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 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

27

28

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 18, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:08-cv-00007-LJO-SKO Document 22 Filed 03/18/10 Page 5 of 5