Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00003/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00003-3/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

NEELY LEONARD, No. CIV S-07-0003-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

D. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on January

3, 2007. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names Ramirez and Adams as defendants. In a section of his pro se

complaint entitled “General Allegations,” plaintiff states:

On 9/17/2005, Mr. Neely and Mr. Winstem was having lunch after

completing a work assigment from 4 A.M. – 11 A.M. As they both was

setting down and having lunch, C/O Ramirez walk up to both black inmate

and place his unclean hand into their food tray. Both inmates inform

Ramirez they would be exercising their redress grievances right and they

filed a redress grievance shortly thereafter leaving work. [sic].

In Retaliation, C/O Ramirez filed a redress grievance against

Neely and Winstem for refusing to return back to work after having been

order and eating food during unauthorized work hours. [sic].

The [undecipherable] act violates the plaintiff right under the

Case 2:07-cv-00003-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 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

2

United States Constitutional First Amendment provision by the retaliatory

conduct suffered for redress grievances right exercises. [sic].

On April 19, 2006, Mr. Neely was returning back from PIA

industry work assignment. As he was walking to his prison cell . . . he

was met by Lieutenant B.C. Adams. B.C. Adams began yelling at him for

no reason and making the statement why was he not in his prison cell,

when the lock control bar for prisoner was pull back. Mr. Neely attempted

to explain to M.C. Adams he was just released from PIA industry gate. As

the statement was made the control bar was pulled, and Mr. Neely

attempted to entered his prison cell and Lt. B.C. Adams cut him off, and

became over aggressive, angry, and hostile. Without any notice Lt. B.C.

Adams thrus his chest into Mr. Neely forcing him to fall backward. [sic].

Lt. B.C. Adams took the prison identification and refuse to return

the I.D. for the purpose of eating evening meal, and ordered Sergeant

Duton maintain Neely person on a shower bench as a disciplinary for

being released from work after the cell control bas was pull for general

prison population or non-workers. [sic].

On April 19, 2006, Mr. Neely was assaulted by Lr. Adams, Denied

a meal and placed on a shower bench from 3:07 P.M. through 9:20 P.M.

as a adverse punishment. This conduct was done prior to any disciplinary

finding or hearing. in violation of Mr. Neely 4th, 8th, and 14th

Amendment right to the United States Constitutional law. [sic].

Further in the complaint, plaintiff adds that, at the time of the September 19, 2005, incident,

defendant Ramirez falsely accused him (and inmate Winstem) of stealing food from the kitchen

where they were working. Plaintiff suggests that the accusation was improperly made against he

and Winstem – black inmates – because other kitchen workers who were “white and Mexican”

were not charged with any rules violation. Plaintiff alleges: “When C/O Ramirez filed the

disciplinary report alleging that Neely and Winstem was caught stealing food, when having

lunch with the kitchen crew, he knowingly and intentionally filed a fraudulent report.” Plaintiff

states that as a result of the allegedly false report, he was found guilty and placed under

“restricted program procedure from the culinary.” Plaintiff does not allege a loss of any goodtime credits. 

Plaintiff alleges four claims for relief – one based on retaliation, two based on

excessive force, and one based on denial of due process. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and

punitive damages and states that he is suing defendants in their individual capacities only. 

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

Case 2:07-cv-00003-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 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

3

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is

appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is

informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this

order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the

action. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

RAMIREZ, and

ADAMS

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed

January 3, 2007; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Two completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed January 3, 2007.

DATED: February 13, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00003-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 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

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEELY LEONARD, No. CIV S-07-0003-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D. RAMIREZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the complaint filed on January 3, 2007.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00003-GEB-CMK Document 8 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4