Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01371/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01371-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DAVID STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

V. G. ESTRELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1371 KJN P 

ORDER

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing 

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will 

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 1 of 8
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

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2). 

 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). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“a judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 2 of 8
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

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 

 Plaintiff alleges that he is required to submit to random drug testing. Plaintiff alleges that 

he suffers from an enlarged prostate. Plaintiff alleges that he could not provide the urine sample 

for the random drug testing because the medication he took for the enlarged prostate did not 

work. 

 Plaintiff alleges that on several occasions he was charged with refusing to submit a urine 

sample after he was unable to do so due to his medical condition. Plaintiff alleges that he was 

wrongfully found guilty of several of these disciplinary charges and assessed time credits. A few 

of these charges were dismissed as having been improperly “stacked,” i.e., plaintiff was charged 

with refusing to submit a urine sample while the same charge was pending. Plaintiff alleges that 

his administrative grievances challenging the prison disciplinary convictions were not properly 

processed. 

 The complaint contains the following legal claims. In his first and third claims for relief, 

plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care by 

failing to provide him with proper treatment for his enlarged prostate. In his second claim, 

plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to properly process his administrative grievances 

challenging his prison disciplinary convictions. In his fourth claim, plaintiff alleges that the 

disciplinary charges against him were false. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. 

 With regarding to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims, plaintiff’s complaint does not 

clearly identify which defendants failed to provide him with adequate medical care for his 

enlarged prostate. Plaintiff does not alleged, for example, that any of the defendants were 

responsible for his failure to receive proper medication for this condition. 

 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 8
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

4

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or 

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). 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). 

 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed with leave to amend because no 

defendants are linked to this claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint alleging inadequate 

medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, he must name as defendants those 

individuals responsible for his failure to receive proper treatment for his enlarged prostate. 

Plaintiff must specifically describe how these individuals failed to properly treat this condition. 

 Plaintiff’s claim that defendants violated his constitutional rights by failing to properly 

process his administrative grievances fails to state a colorable claim for relief. The existence of 

an administrative remedy process does not create any substantive rights and cannot support a 

claim for relief for violation of a constitutional right. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th 

Cir. 2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988).

 Plaintiff alleges that he was charged with false rules violations. As discussed above, 

plaintiff was found guilty of several of these rules violations and assessed time credits. 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 4 of 8
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

5

 In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), an Indiana state prisoner brought a civil 

rights action under § 1983 for damages. Claiming that state and county officials violated his 

constitutional rights, he sought damages for improprieties in the investigation leading to his 

arrest, for the destruction of evidence, and for conduct during his trial (“illegal and unlawful voice 

identification procedure”). Convicted on voluntary manslaughter charges, and serving a fifteen 

year term, plaintiff did not seek injunctive relief or release from custody. The United States 

Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the complaint and held that: 

in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional 

conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions 

whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, 

a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has 

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, 

declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance 

of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for damages 

bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not 

been so invalidated is not cognizable under 1983. 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. The Court expressly held that a cause of action for damages under § 1983 

concerning a criminal conviction or sentence cannot exist unless the conviction or sentence has 

been invalidated, expunged or reversed. Id. 

 In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), the Supreme Court held that Heck applies to 

challenges to prison disciplinary hearings when the nature of the challenge to the procedures 

could be such as necessarily to imply the invalidity of the judgment. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the judgments for the prison disciplinary convictions 

for which he was assessed time credits have been invalidated. For this reason, plaintiff’s claims 

challenging the validity of the prison disciplinary convictions for which he was assessed time 

credits are barred by Heck. 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions about 

which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 

423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 5 of 8
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

6

affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; 

May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. 

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

 Plaintiff’s original complaint is 48 pages long. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires 

pleadings to contain a short and plain statement of the claim. It is clear that plaintiff can state his 

claims in a pleading that is significantly shorter than 48 pages. Accordingly, plaintiff’s amended 

complaint may be no longer than 20 pages. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith. 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 

 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 

 b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action. 

Dated: August 29, 2014 

Steph1371.14 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 7 of 8
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL DAVID STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

V.G. ESTRELLA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1371 KJN P 

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order 

filed______________. 

 _____________ Amended Complaint 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-01371-KJN Document 7 Filed 08/29/14 Page 8 of 8