Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01121/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01121-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW A. CEJAS, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1121 MCE KJM P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On June 6, 2006, the court

recommended that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to file a complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has now filed a § 1983 complaint. Therefore, the court will vacate its

June 6, 2006 findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $2.00 will be assessed by this

order. 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 for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 1 of 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

2

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 where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed primarily because it is too long, and the

claims covered by it are unclear. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) complaints

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 2 of 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

3

generally must be short and plain. Plaintiff’s complaint is 104 pages long and contains much

irrelevant or duplicative information. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended

complaint.

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

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); 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).

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to plead a claim based on denial of access to

the courts, an inmate has a constitutionally protected right of meaningful access to the courts. 

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977). It is not enough, however, for an inmate to

allege some abstract interference; instead, he must show “actual injury” to his rights. Lewis v. 

Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

Plaintiff also appears to claim prison officials interfered with his legal mail. It is

an open question in this Circuit as to whether allegations that prison officials have opened and

inspected legal correspondence outside the presence of an inmate state a claim for relief. 

Sherman v. MacDougall, 656 F.2d 527 (9th Cir 1981). However, a claim of interference with

legal mail may implicate an inmate plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to the courts or

right to correspond with counsel. Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003). 

As for plaintiff’s apparent claim regarding an alleged denial of his First

Amendment right to free exercise of religion, prisoners do retain the First Amendment right to

free exercise of religion. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). Nevertheless,

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 3 of 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

4

limitations on a prisoner's free exercise rights arise both from the fact of incarceration and from

valid penological objectives. Id.; McElyea v. Babbit, 833 F.2d 196, 197 (9th Cir.1987). In order

to establish a violation of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, a prisoner must

show the defendants burdened the practice of his religion by preventing him from engaging in

conduct mandated by his faith, without any justification reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732 (9th Cir.1997). "In order to reach the

level of a constitutional violation, the interference with one's practice of religion must be more

than an inconvenience; the burden must be substantial and an interference with a tenet or belief

that is central to religious doctrine." Id. at 737 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s allegations, to date, that he sought a single cell so he would not be housed with

someone who violated the edicts of his religion, without an allegation that such housing would

burden his own practice of his faith, do not state a viable claim. 

Plaintiff also seems to allege a retaliation claim. Plaintiff is advised that

retaliatory actions taken against a prisoner for exercising his First Amendment rights may violate

the constitution whether or not the underlying misconduct would establish a constitutional

violation. 

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state

actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3)

that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate's exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the

action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). An allegation of

harm, rather than of chill, may be a sufficient basis for a claim of retaliation. Pratt v. Rowland,

65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995); Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th

Cir.1989). 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 4 of 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

5

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

With respect to the length of his amended complaint plaintiff is informed as

follows. In McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeal upheld the dismissal of a complaint it found to be “argumentative, prolix, replete with

redundancy, and largely irrelevant. It consists largely of immaterial background information.” 

The court observed the Federal Rules require that a complaint consist of “simple, concise, and

direct” averments. Id. As a model of concise pleading, the court quoted the standard form

negligence complaint from the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

1. Allegation of jurisdiction.

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called Boylston Street, in

Boston Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor

vehicle against plaintiff, who was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken,

and was otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his

business, suffered great pain of body and mind, and incurred

expenses for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum of

one thousand dollars.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the

sum of one thousand dollars.

Id. 

Phrased another way, “Vigorous writing is concise.” William Strunk, Jr. & E.B.

White, The Elements of Style, § III, ¶ 13 <http://www.bartleby.com/141>. 

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from many of the same problems as the pleading

dismissed in McHenry: there is much “‘narrative rambling[]’” yet a marked lack of “notice of

what legal claims are asserted against which defendants.” Id. at 1176. As in McHenry,

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 5 of 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

6

“[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the ones plaintiff filed in this case impose unfair burdens

on litigants and judges.” Id. at 1179. 

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

1. The court’s June 6, 2006 findings and recommendations are vacated.

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

3. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.00. 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.

4. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice and this order; the amended complaint

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”;

plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for use in filing civil

rights actions in this district. 

DATED: May 8, 2007. 

1

ceja1121.14(6.26.06)

Case 2:05-cv-01121-AK Document 19 Filed 05/09/07 Page 6 of 6