Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01171/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01171-1/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

JABIR SADIQ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1171 LKK EFB P 

vs.

LT. ROBERTS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

His declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by

separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the

appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

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

screening, finds that it states cognizable claims against defendant Roberts. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A. While plaintiff clearly sets forth a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights through

his allegations of excessive force, the allegations regarding verbal harassment fail to state a

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 8
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

cognizable claim. The complaint also fails to state a cognizable due process claim.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be

subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights,

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the

party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for

redress . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 1983. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts

establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal

connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. 

See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44

(9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff may not sue any supervisor on a theory that the supervisor is liable for

the acts of his or her subordinates. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). A

supervisor may be held liable in his or her individual capacity “‘for his own culpable action or

inaction in the training, supervision or control of his subordinates.’” Watkins v. City of Oakland,

Cal., 145 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630,

646 (9th Cir. 1991)). To state a claim against any individual defendant, the plaintiff must allege

facts showing that the individual defendant participated in or directed the alleged violation, or

knew of the violation and failed to act to prevent it. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) (“A plaintiff must allege facts, not

simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of

his civil rights.”); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045.

Plaintiff claims that defendant used an offensive statement instead of calling plaintiff by

his name. However, verbal harassment or verbal abuse by prison officials generally does not

constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1996) (harassment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (vulgar language directed at an inmate is not

cognizable under section 1983). Thus, plaintiff’s claims regarding verbal harassment are

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 8
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

dismissed.

Plaintiff also attempts to state a cognizable due process claim, alleging only that

defendant has “a personal bias” against him, “which had a negative affect on [plaintiff’s]

hearing.” Compl. at 6. The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of

liberty without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to

state a cause of action for deprivation of due process, a plaintiff must first establish the existence

of a liberty interest for which the protection is sought. “States may under certain circumstances

create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause.” Sandin v. Conner, 515

U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Liberty interests created by state law are generally limited to freedom

from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484. In a disciplinary proceeding where a

liberty interest is at stake, due process requires that minimum procedural requirements be met,

including: (1) written notice of the charges; (2) at least 24 hours between the time the prisoner

receives written notice and the time of the hearing, so that the prisoner may prepare his defense;

(3) a written statement by the fact finders of the evidence they rely on and reasons for taking

disciplinary action; (4) the right of the prisoner to call witnesses in his defense, when permitting

him to do so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (5)

legal assistance to the prisoner where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented are legally

complex. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-70. Plaintiff’s conclusory statement regarding a due process

violation is insufficient to state a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, plaintiff’s due process

claim will be dismissed.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint, he may do so. However, he is not

obligated to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s decision not to file an amended complaint will be

construed as consent to dismissal of his claims based on verbal harassment and due process,

without prejudice.

////

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 8
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

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and 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 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 eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all 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, 1180 (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

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 8
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

read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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 plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these

instructions. 

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

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

pleading. Local Rule 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 an 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

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 5 of 8
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

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. Plaintiff is

further admonished that 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 defendant

Roberts.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. 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. Plaintiff’s claims based on verbal harassment and due process are dismissed. Within

30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state cognizable

claims based upon these allegations. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

4. The remaining allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state cognizable claims

against defendant Roberts. 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 April 29, 2009, one USM-285

form and instructions for service of process on defendant Roberts. Within 20 days of service of

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 6 of 8
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

this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the

completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and two copies of the April 29, 2009

complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendant Roberts 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 based on verbal harassment and due process, without prejudice.

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

Dated: February 22, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JABIR SADIQ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1171 LKK EFB P 

vs.

LT. ROBERTS,

Defendant. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed forms USM-285 

 2 copies of the April 29, 2009 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-01171-LKK -EFB Document 11 Filed 02/22/10 Page 8 of 8