Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02680/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02680-1/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

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2680 LKK EFB P

vs.

D. L. PORTER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On November 27, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint. However, he had not

filed a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a first

amended complaint. Thereafter, the court directed plaintiff to pay the filing fee or seek leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and plaintiff complied with that order. On June 25, 2007 and

September 4, 2007, plaintiff filed documents styled, “Supplemental Complaint.” For the reasons

explained below, the court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis, strikes the

“supplemental complaints,” and dismisses the first amended complaint with leave to amend.

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

A. In Forma Pauperis Status

 Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Thus, pursuant to 28

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

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

account. 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. 

B. Supplemental Complaint

The court has read the June 6, 2007, first amended complaint and the June 25 and

September 4, 2007, “Supplemental Complaints,” and finds that the latter fail to comply with the

rules governing supplemental pleadings. Under the rules governing pleadings and motions,

Upon motion of a party the court may, upon reasonable notice and upon such

terms as are just, permit the party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth

transactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the

pleading sought to be supplemented. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). The Local Rules of this Court require that a changed pleading “shall be

retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded

pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Rule 15(d) presupposes that there is on file a complaint upon

which the plaintiff may proceed. Here, the court concludes that the first amended complaint fails

to state a claim for relief. Thus, there is no complaint to be supplemented. Even putting the

other procedural defects aside, i.e., the lack of a motion and plaintiff’s failure to ensure that the

supplemental pleading is complete in itself, the court cannot properly consider the document as a

proper supplemental complaint in the absence of an operative complaint. Thus, the June 25 and

September 4, 2007, “supplemental complaints” are stricken. The court now turns to the June 6,

2007, first amended complaint. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

C. First Amended Complaint

The court has reviewed the first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

finds it does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. To proceed, plaintiff must file

an amended complaint.

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. Attachments to a complaint are to be considered part of the

complaint for purposes of determining whether it states a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1062; See also, Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n. 19 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that attachments to a complaint

are to be considered part of the complaint in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion).

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).

A district court must construe 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). The

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the

assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint consists of 95 pages, about 80 of which are records

attached in support of plaintiff’s allegations. Plaintiff claims that he was transferred from Solano

State Prison to Folsom State Prison even though he was scheduled for back surgery, causing

prolonged delay in receiving surgery during which he suffered pain. He alleges that D. L. Porter,

J. Dunlap, S. Kansier, K Stocker and P. Sahata failed to respond to his grievances about the

transfer and delay. He further alleges that T. W. Hendricks approved him for transfer, V. Mini

rescinded plaintiff’s permission to remain standing when all other prisoners are ordered down,

and R. Janzen, J. Seherelbein, D. H. Ervin, E. L. Newton, L.A. Snead and R. Clayton filed a

disciplinary report charging plaintiff with disobeying orders (presumably to get down). Plaintiff

also alleges that R. Clayton and L. Rianda renewed his authorization to remain standing. 

////

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

Plaintiff asserts that B. Jones and M.C. Kramer interviewed plaintiff for one of his appeals, but

does not allege how they delayed his surgery. Finally, he alleges that on January 16, 2007,

defendants Dudley, Hale, Roche, McDonald and French refused to provide medical treatment for

plaintiff.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim

defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or

omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). Neither defendants’ negligence nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with the treatment

he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v. United States, 838

F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1996). When a

prisoner alleges a delay in medical treatment, he must show the delay caused an injury. See

McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX

Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.2d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc); see also Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334-35 (9th Cir.1990) (several day delay in treatment did not

violate Eighth Amendment where there was no emergency and given plaintiff’s condition, i.e., a

severe shoulder injury, the only remedy immediately available was painkillers). To state a claim

for the deprivation of procedural due process, plaintiff must allege a defendant deprived him of a

liberty interest, which may arise independently under the due process clause or as freedom from

state deprivation or restraint imposing “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84

(1995).

The court has reviewed the attachments to the amended complaint. These records show

that on June 16, 2005, plaintiff was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and a herniated

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

disc in his lower back. Amend. Compl., Ex. 2. On December 7, 2005, plaintiff was awaiting a

consultation for possible lumbar fusion surgery. Id., Ex. 1. That same date, he was transferred

from Soledad to Folsom State Prison. Id., Ex. 4. On December 9, 2005, plaintiff was given a

cane and was prescribed two pain medications. Id. Plaintiff underwent Magnetic Resonance

Imaging December 14, 2005, and was prescribed additional pain medications. In January, these

prescriptions were refilled, and he was authorized to have a cell on the ground floor and to have

a bottom bunk. Id. As of February 8, 2006, plaintiff was scheduled for a neurological

consultation, which he had on February 21, 2006. The neurologist recommended a radiological

image of the spinal cord and associated nerves in order to rule out nerve impingement and

instability, and he underwent this procedure in April 2006. After this procedure, physicians

recommended that plaintiff undergo surgery, which he did on July 10, 2006.

With respect to the disciplinary charge for plaintiff’s refusing to sit down when ordered

to for security reasons, the attachments again show that plaintiff has no claim for which relief

can be granted. After a hearing at which the evidence showed that plaintiff could comply with

orders to get down in some circumstances, but only slowly because of his back problems, the

hearing officer dismissed the charge. Id., Ex. 17. Thus, plaintiff was not disciplined.

For all these reasons, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegations do not satisfy the

standards set out above. Thus, to proceed, he must file a second-amended complaint.

The court (and defendant) should be able to 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. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he 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. Prison rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See 15 Cal.

Admin. Code § 3005.

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). 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 action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

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

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff

shall file an original and one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket

number assigned to this case and be titled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an

amended complaint will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed for failure to state a

claim. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed

with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 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

4. The June 25, 2007 and September 4, 2007, documents styled, “Supplemental

Complaints,” are stricken and the Clerk shall make a notation of such on the docket.

Dated: November 20, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02680-LKK-EFB Document 12 Filed 11/20/07 Page 8 of 8