Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00686/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00686-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PIZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00686-JCS (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he raises claims against correctional officers 

at Salinas Valley State Prison. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. 

The first amended complaint is likewise dismissed with leave to file a second amended 

complaint on or before February 22, 2016. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that 

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 

(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has 

facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

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

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims 

1. Original Complaint

In the original complaint, plaintiff raised two claims. In the first, plaintiff alleged 

that while he was housed in the mental health unit of Salinas Valley State Prison, 

Correctional Officer Pizano conducted an impermissible cell search, unlawfully packed up 

his personal property, and stored it in a staff bathroom. Some time after that, the property 

was stolen and destroyed by second and third watch porters. 

In the second claim, plaintiff alleged that Pizano and other correctional officers 

(S. Hampton, Nunez, Perez and Mora), threw out his legal documents and threatened to 

place him in administrative segregation in retaliation for filing grievances against staff. 

The Court dismissed the first claim without leave to amend because the availability 

of an adequate state post-deprivation remedy for the random and unauthorized deprivation 

of property, e.g., a state tort action, precludes relief under section 1983. See Zinermon v. 

Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 128 (1990). 

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court dismissed the second claim with leave to amend. Plaintiff was instructed 

that he needed to allege specific facts showing that defendants’ actions caused him an 

actual injury by hindering his efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. See Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349, 351 (1996). He was also instructed that he had to allege 

specific facts showing that the officers’ acts, if committed, were retaliatory under Rhodes 

v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). 

2. First Amended Complaint

In the first amended complaint, plaintiff realleges his claim regarding the 

deprivation of property. This claim, which he lacked permission to raise again, is 

DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the previous screening order. 

Plaintiff raises his retaliation claim again, and asserts that there were two instances. 

First, he alleges that during an interview regarding his grievance J. Lopez “tried to use 

intimidation and threats of plaintiff not receiving any reimbursement of his stolen and 

destroyed property items.” (Am. Compl. at 9.) “Plaintiff with[drew] upon receiving these 

threats.” (Id.) (The Court assumes that plaintiff means he withdrew his grievances.) Yet, 

he also alleges that he and Lopez “agreed upon plaintiff’s relief request . . . to receive full 

reimbursement of all his destroyed and stolen property.” (Id.) He also resubmitted his 

grievances. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim for relief. To state a claim for retaliation, 

a plaintiff must show that defendant’s actions chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First 

Amendment rights. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005). That a 

prisoner’s First Amendment rights were chilled, though not necessarily silenced, is 

enough. Id. at 569. The proper analysis is whether a person of ordinary firmness would be 

chilled or silenced from exercising future First Amendment rights. Id. Plaintiff’s 

allegations do not meet this standard. He was not chilled or silenced, nor has he shown 

that he, or that a person of ordinary firmness, would be dissuaded from pursuing further 

grievances. Rather, he and Lopez agreed on a disposition of the matter and plaintiff refiled 

his grievances. Because plaintiff cannot allege facts that state a claim, this retaliation 

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 

In his second claim of retaliation, he alleges that in 2014 unspecified defendants 

violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights by putting pepper spray into his food, 

which he ate without knowing it had been contaminated. Plaintiff does not name which 

defendants personally contaminated the food, how he came to know that defendants were 

the ones who contaminated his food, or how he knows that their actions were in fact 

retaliatory. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must correct these deficiencies. 

Plaintiff also raises a new claim. He alleges that in 2014 prison guards Mora and 

Perez failed to protect him from his violent cellmate. This claim is DISMISSED without

prejudice. It is unrelated by fact or law to any of the claims raised in either complaint. If 

plaintiff wishes to pursue this claim in federal court, he must file a separate civil rights 

action. A blank complaint form will be sent to him. 

CONCLUSION

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint on or before February 22, 2016. The second amended complaint 

must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (15-0686 JCS (PR)) and 

the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. It must address all 

deficiencies discussed above. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the 

previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT all 

the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from 

any prior complaint by reference. Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be 

deemed waived. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will 

result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff.

Plaintiff may not reallege his property deprivation claim, his claim against Lopez, 

or his failure-to-protect claim. If these or any other unrelated claims appear in the next

complaint, they will be summarily dismissed. 

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 4 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court 

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice 

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask 

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

If plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim in his second amended 

complaint, this suit will be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January13, 2016

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. PIZANO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00686-JCS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 13, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Antoine L. Ardds ID: P-59915

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050 

Dated: January 13, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

Case 5:15-cv-00686-EJD Document 14 Filed 01/13/16 Page 6 of 6