Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00576-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY B. BARNO,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00576-RRB

DISMISSAL ORDER

Rodney B. Barno, a California state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma

pauperis, has filed this action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the

Declaratory Relief Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, against various officials employed by the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.1 Barno’s action arises out of his

incarceration at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility–Corcoran (“CSATF”). 

Barno is currently incarcerated at the California State Prison, Soledad.

I. BACKGROUND/PRIOR ORDER

This Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

2 Upon

screening Barno’s original Complaint, found that Claim One against David Lopez and

1

In addition to David Lopez, Barno named as Defendants in his original Complaint: 

S. Avila-Beccera; J. Arrellano; Johnson (female Segregation Officer); F. Madruga;

C. Frazier; J. Corral; and J. Zamora.

2

 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 1

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 6
Claim Two, to the extent that Johnson labeled Barno as a “snitch,” sufficiently stated a

cause of action. The Court dismissed it without leave to amend as against J. Corral and

J. Zamora, and dismissed it with leave to amend as against S. Avila-Beccera, J. Arrellano,

Johnson, F. Madruga, and C. Frazier. The Court granted Barno leave to elect to either

proceed on Claim One against Lopez and Claim Two as against Johnson or to elect to

amend his Complaint.3In that Order the Court gave Barno explicit, detailed instructions

as to the form and content required in preparing and filing his Amended Complaint. 

In response thereto at Docket 10 Barno has filed a document entitled Amended Civil

Rights Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (State Prisoner). The Court screens amended

complaints using the same standards used in screening the original Complaint. A pleading

that has been amended under Rule 15(a) supersedes the pleading it modifies and remains

in effect throughout the action unless it subsequently is modified. Once an amended

pleading is interposed, the original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.4

II. GRAVAMEN OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Barno’s original Complaint is dated April 13, 2016. In his Amended Complaint,

which spans the period between on or about January 19 and March 23, 2016, asserts

numerous claims against Lopez, Avilla-Beccera, Johnson, and Frazier. These claims are

summarized as follows:

3

 Docket 9.

4 6 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.,

§ 1476 (2d ed.); see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Loux v. Ray,

375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 2

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 6
Lopez. Alleges that on January 19, 2016, while Lopez was placing Barno in the

Administrative Segregation Unit Lopez used excessive force by hitting Barno in the head

twice and slamming Barno’s head against the wall. Barno further alleges that Lopez

labeled him a “snitch,” and interfered with Barno’s right to file administrative appeals.

Avila-Beccera. Alleges that on various dates between January 31 and March 23,

2016, Avila-Beccera: (1) obstructed Barno’s attempts to seek redress for grievances;

(2) threatened Barno with assault if Barno did not cease fling grievances; (3) denied Barno

unspecified meals during a three-week period; (4) failed to deliver Barno’s legal mail to the

CSATF mail room; (5) threatened Barno with false and fabricated disciplinary proceeding;

and (6) denied Barno showers on several occasions.

Johnson. Alleges that Johnson: (1) labeled Barno a “snitch,” placing Barno in

danger of assault by a fellow inmate: (2) denied Barno part or all of his breakfast on two

occasions; (3) denied Barno toilet paper and access to the law library; and (4) confiscated

Barno’s clothes as a result of which Barno was denied outdoor exercise.

Frazier. Alleges that Frazier, the official who conducted a disciplinary proceeding: 

(1) retaliated against Barno by confiscating Barno’s television and imposing other punitive

measures; (2) altered and falsified documents as a cover-up; and (3) threatened to issue

another disciplinary report to dissuade Barno from pursuing his internal appeals. 

III. DISCUSSION

In its initial Order the Court set forth in detail the law applicable to Barno’s claims. 

Consequently it does not restate that law herein.

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 3

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 6
Much of Barno’s Amended Complaint is couched in merely conclusory terms without

supporting specific factual details. As the Court explained in its initial Dismissal, mere

conclusory allegations are insufficient.5 To a some extent Barno’s allegations are also

overly broad. For example, Barno alleges that during the period February 2 through

February 22, 2016, Avila-Baccera denied Barno meals but does not specify which

particular meals were denied during that period. This is particularly the case here where

the lack of specific facts render the allegation inherently improbable. Barno should allege

each date he was denied a meal and which meals he was denied on that date.

Finally, in his Amended Complaint Barno not only fails to cure most of the defects

noted by the Court in dismissing his original Complaint, but fails to follow the specific

instructions given by the Court in its Order. Specifically, Barno failed to attach to the

Amended Complaint all documents evidencing his attempts to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to each particular claim as against each Defendant. In further

amending the complaint Barno must refer to and attach the specific documents evidencing

the exhaustion of each specific claim, or provide an explanation as to why he should be

excused from exhausting that claim. Barno is cautioned that, if raised by the Defendants,

the failure to properly exhaust will result in dismissal at an early stage of the proceeding. 

In this case, given the time frame involved, a likely outcome.

5 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 4

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 4 of 6
IV. ORDER

Because it fails to comply with the Court’s directions, the Amended Civil Rights

Complaint Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (State Prisoner) at Docket 10 is hereby DISMISSED in

its entirety.

6

 

Barno is granted through and including August 31, 2016, in which to file a Second

Amended Complaint consistent with this Order and the prior Dismissal Order. In amending

his Complaint Barno is again cautioned that he must:

1. Adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding pleadings, in

particular, Rule 8(a), which provides— 

(a) CLAIM FOR RELIEF. A pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no

new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the

alternative or different types of relief.

2. Use and follow the instructions for completing the form provided by the Clerk

of the Court. 

3. With respect to each claim plead without legal argument or citation to

authority the facts entitling him to relief: (1) the identity of the person doing the act;

(2) description of the act and the date it occurred; (3) the harm/injury suffered as a result;

and (4) the specific relief requested, e.g., amount of monetary damages.

6

 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 5

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 5 of 6
4. Separate acts, whether different in time or nature, must be pleaded as

separate claims.

5. Sequentially number paragraphs, and attach copies of all documents referred

to in the body of the complaint to the extent that copies of such documents are within his

possession, custody, or control.

6. With respect to each claim as against each defendant affirmatively plead that

he has exhausted his available administrative remedies or was prevented by

circumstances beyond his control from exhausting his administrative remedies and, to the

extent they are in his possession, custody, or control, attach to the Amended Complaint

copies of all documents evidencing such exhaustion. 

In the event Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint consistent with this

Order within the time specified, or such later time as the Court may order, a

judgment of dismissal may be entered without further notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2016.

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DISMISSAL ORDER

Barno v. Lopez, 1:16-cv-00576-RRB – 6

Case 1:16-cv-00576-DAD-BAM Document 11 Filed 07/20/16 Page 6 of 6