Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02002/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02002-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

DAVID B. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2002 FCD EFB P

vs.

R. J. SUBIA, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The case was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). He must

make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust

account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward

payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 7
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

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states cognizable claims for retaliation against defendants C. Campbell

and R. L. Heise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

For the reasons explained below, the complaint does not state a cognizable claim against

defendants R. Williams or R. J. Subia.

Plaintiff alleges that R. Williams denied him due process in the disciplinary hearing on

the charge that plaintiff committed a battery on defendant Campbell. Plaintiff alleges that he

was found guilty of the charge and lost 150 days of time credit, but there was not sufficient

evidence to support the finding of guilt. A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a

claim if “judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence

has already been invalidated.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). This rule applies

to a prisoner’s challenge to disciplinary procedures resulting in the loss of time credits. Edwards

v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). Here, if the court were to find that the evidence was not

sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt, that necessarily would imply the invalidity of the

decision to revoke plaintiff’s time credits. Thus, unless petitioner can demonstrate that prison

officials restored his time credits or that the disciplinary conviction was set aside or somehow

invalidated, he cannot proceed on this claim.

Plaintiff makes no specific allegations against defendant Subia. This defendant was the

Acting Warden of Mule Creek State Prison at the time of the events giving rise to this action. 

Section 1983 creates a cause of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives

a citizen or person within the jurisdiction of the United Sates of a constitutional right. 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. A person deprives another “of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section

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 the plaintiff

complains.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Absent some particular

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 7
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

participation in an alleged constitutional violation, supervisors are not subject to liability under §

1983. Thus, to state a claim against a supervisor who did not personally inflict the injury

alleged, plaintiff must allege the supervisor (1) caused others to act, or knowingly refused to stop

them from acting, knowing or having reasonable cause to know they would inflict injury; (2)

approved such conduct and injury after the fact; or (3) so failed to train or control subordinates to

avoid such injury as to demonstrate reckless or callous indifference to constitutional injury. 

Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978); see also, Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930,

937 & fn. 4 (9th Cir. 2002). Given the absence of specific allegations against this defendant,

plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants C. Campbell and R. L. Heise and

pursue his claims against only those defendants, or he may delay serving any defendant and

attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendants R. Williams and R. J. Subia.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants R. Williams and R. J. Subia, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend

his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants C. Campbell and R. L. Heise,

against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must return

materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe

plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants R. Williams and R. J.

Subia without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 7
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

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff

contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their

agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must not include any preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories,

griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like. 

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983

complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597

(1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully

warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand

plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 A long, rambling pleading

including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 4 of 7
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

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a second amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable

inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court

may impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. By signing

an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law

that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal

of his entire action, including his claims against defendants C. Campbell and R. L. Heise.

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 5 of 7
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

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected and

paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants R. Williams and R. J. Subia are dismissed with leave to

amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to

state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants C. Campbell and R. L. Heise. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of

the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed September 25,

2007, two USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants C. Campbell

and R. L. Heise. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice

of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and

three copies of the endorsed September 25, 2007, complaint. The court will transmit them to the

United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants C.

Campbell and R. L. Heise will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the

deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s

election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims against

defendants R. Williams and R. J. Subia without prejudice.

Dated: April 2, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID B. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2002 FCD EFB P

vs.

R. J. SUBIA, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the September 25, 2007 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-02002-PMP-GWF Document 9 Filed 04/02/08 Page 7 of 7