Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00010/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00010-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.A. ZAMORA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0010 KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff 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.

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 to make monthly 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

2

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s 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).

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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. 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 when 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), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); 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)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more 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. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

3

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

Plaintiff contends that defendant Yang disregarded a prison memo providing that no 

volunteer inmates were allowed in the kitchen. Yang allegedly permitted inmate Clark, who 

suffers from a mental illness, to volunteer in the kitchen, and Clark allegedly attacked plaintiff in 

the kitchen. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Yang and Stratton tried to cover up their violation of 

the prison policy by issuing plaintiff a rules violation report (“RVR”) for fighting, despite inmate 

Clark telling defendants Yang and Stratton that Clark attacked plaintiff unprovoked. Plaintiff 

alleges that Stratton signed the RVR and omitted the information about Clark. Plaintiff contends 

that defendant Schultz covered this up by holding the RVR hearing on November 13, 2013, just 

five days after the RVR issued. Plaintiff also contends that he was denied the right to call 

witnesses at the RVR hearing. Further, plaintiff alleges that defendants Zamora and Briggs 

attempted to stop the appeals process at the final level, seeking to help defendants Yang, Stratton, 

and Schultz cover up the non-volunteer directive. Plaintiff contends that defendant Zamora 

returned plaintiff’s third level appeal seeking more documentation, but when plaintiff complied, 

defendant Zamora screened out the appeal as untimely. 

1. Challenge to Rules Violation Report

Plaintiff’s central allegation appears to be a fraudulent disciplinary process. In Edwards v. 

Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United States Supreme Court applied the doctrine 

articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), to prison disciplinary hearings. In 

Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages for unconstitutional conviction or 

imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would 

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate 

that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In 

applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court held that a claim challenging the 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

4

procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a claim seeks money damages and 

no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature of the inmate’s allegations are 

such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the result of the prison disciplinary 

hearing. Balisok, 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if successful, would invalidate the 

duration of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a habeas corpus petition and not 

under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

Although the specific facts of Balisok involved allegations of deceit and bias on the part 

of a hearing officer, the Court’s reasoning applies to any claim which, if proven, would have the 

effect of invalidating the result of a disciplinary hearing. The Ninth Circuit has applied the 

Balisok rule to a case in which a prisoner sought damages based on allegations that prison 

officials relied on false information to find him ineligible for parole. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 

1023 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the claim necessarily implied the invalidity of the prisoner’s 

continued confinement, the claim could not accrue until the conviction or sentence had been 

invalidated. Id.

Here, plaintiff’s core factual allegations are that he was convicted based upon charges that 

were false. Plaintiff states he was found guilty of fighting, but contends that inmate Clark struck 

plaintiff because Clark is mentally ill, and that plaintiff did not provoke Clark. To the extent 

plaintiff disputes that he fought with Clark, judgment in his favor would necessarily implicate the 

validity of the guilty finding in the rules violation report. Because plaintiff’s claim necessarily 

implies the invalidity of his continued confinement as a result of the disciplinary hearing, his 

claim will not accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. In other words, 

plaintiff cannot challenge the rules violation report in a civil rights action unless and until the 

prison disciplinary has been invalidated through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

2. Procedural Due Process

Before sanctions can be imposed in a prison disciplinary hearing, a prisoner must be 

accorded basic procedural safeguards: 1) advance written notice of the charges; 2) a “written 

statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action”; 

3) an opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence in his defense if “to do so will 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

5

not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 564-66 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff claims that he 

was denied the right to call witnesses, but he fails to specifically identify the defendant or 

defendants who denied him such right. Thus, plaintiff is given leave to amend to identify the 

defendant or defendants who denied him due process during the RVR hearing.

3. Administrative Appeals Process

Plaintiff appears to allege that some defendants are liable based on their role in the inmate 

grievance process. However, prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional entitlement to a 

specific grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003), citing 

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Even the non-existence of, or the failure of 

prison officials to properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system 

does not raise constitutional concerns. Mann, 855 F.2d at 640 (holding that there is no liberty 

interest entitling inmates to a specific grievance process). Put another way, prison officials are 

not required under federal law to process inmate grievances in a specific way or to respond to 

them in a favorable manner. Because there is no right to any particular grievance process, 

plaintiff cannot state a cognizable civil rights claim for a violation of his due process rights based 

on allegations that prison officials ignored or failed to properly process grievances. See, e.g., 

Wright v. Shannon, 2010 WL 445203 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2010) (plaintiff’s allegations that 

prison officials denied or ignored his inmate appeals failed to state a cognizable claim under the 

First Amendment); Towner v. Knowles, 2009 WL 4281999 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009) 

(plaintiff’s allegations that prison officials screened out his inmate appeals without any basis 

failed to indicate a deprivation of federal rights); Williams v. Cate, 2009 WL 3789597 at *6 (E.D. 

Cal. Nov.10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the vindication of his 

administrative claims.”). Thus, plaintiff should not include such claims in any amended 

complaint. 

4. Conclusion

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

6

court has determined that 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 and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones 

v. Cmty. 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 plaintiff’s claim. 

Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the 

complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each 

named defendant is involved. Id. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is 

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. 

Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, 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).

In addition, plaintiff is 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 requirement exists 

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.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

7

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also 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 may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

Dated: February 26, 2015

/davi0010.14

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHELDON DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.A. ZAMORA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0010 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

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

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-00010-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/26/15 Page 8 of 8