Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00566/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00566-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORLANDO LEWAYNE PILCHER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE BABCOCK et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0566 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has brought his civil action 

seeking relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)1and has 

requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was 

referred to the undersigned 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.

/////

/////

 

1 Actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and those brought under Bivens are similar, except that

under § 1983 a state actor’s conduct is at issue, and under Bivens a federal actor’s conduct it at 

issue. See Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991). When reviewing a Bivens

action for which there is no case on point, § 1983 cases are to be applied by analogy. See Butz v. 

Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 504 (1978).

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 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

27

28

2

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 for monthly payments 

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

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).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 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.

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)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 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

27

28

3

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. 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 Hospital 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

In his complaint plaintiff has identified Warden Babcock and seven other prison officials

employed at Federal Correctional Institution, Herlong, as the defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint is 

difficult to decipher. However, it appears plaintiff is attempting to allege that the defendants have 

failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care. In this regard, plaintiff alleges 

that he has a serious head and brain injury but has not received an adequate medical examination. 

Instead, according to plaintiff, defendants have made sure that his daily existence has been 

complicated, miserable, and as uncomfortable as possible. (Compl. at 3 & Attachs.)

DISCUSSION

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice to 

the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege 

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his 

claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. However, the court will grant plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must allege facts demonstrating how 

the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). In addition, plaintiff must 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 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

27

28

4

allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s 

rights. 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). 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).

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from a number of deficiencies. First, the court observes that 

plaintiff has named a number of supervisory officials as the defendants in this action. However, 

plaintiff has not alleged what specific acts each of these supervisory defendants engaged in to 

violate his constitutional rights. Plaintiff is advised that the United States Supreme Court has 

held that federal officials cannot be held vicariously liable “for the unconstitutional conduct of 

their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 554 U.S. 662, 676 

(2009). Therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link 

between that defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. Id.

Moreover, insofar as plaintiff wishes to present a claim that he has received 

constitutionally inadequate medical care, he is advised that the United States Supreme Court has 

recognized that a Bivens action may be brought under the Eighth Amendment for damages 

incurred as a result of inadequate medical care. See Minneci v. Pollard, __ U.S. __, __, 132 S. Ct. 

617, 622 (2012) (citing Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1080). However, to establish a violation 

of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege in specific 

terms how any named defendants were “deliberately indifferent” to his serious medical needs in 

either denying or providing inadequate medical care to him. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 

106 (1976) (inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment unless the 

mistreatment rose to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”). Deliberate

indifference is “a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence” and “requires ‘more than 

ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner’s interests or safety.’” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 835 (1994). Before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the 

indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or 

‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 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

27

28

5

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). Likewise, a mere disagreement 

between plaintiff and defendants as to how defendants provided him with medical care fails to 

state a cognizable claim. See Toguchi v. Soon Hwang Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 

2004); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Plaintiff is also 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 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.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) 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 

Warden of Federal Correctional Institution, Herlong, filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

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

complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must 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 will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 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

27

28

6

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a civil 

rights action.

Dated: March 21, 2014

DAD:9

pilc0566.14a

Case 2:14-cv-00566-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/24/14 Page 6 of 6