Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02299/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02299-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGG L. BARNES, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:07-cv-02299-KJD-PAL

)

vs. ) ORDER

) 

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

__________________________________________) 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Gregg L. Barnes’ Motion for Leave to Supplement

Complaint (#43). Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Declaration/Motion (#44) seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief, and Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Complaint (#47). None of the Motions

have been opposed or responded to by any Defendant. The Court considers each of the Motions and

rules on them together herein. 

I. Background

On June 6, 2008, Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller issued an Order (#19) granting

Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint. Specifically, the

Magistrate Judge found that the “allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint . . . are so vague and

conclusory that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (#19 at 3.) Additionally, the

Court informed Plaintiff that to the extent he was attempting to plead a violation of the Eighth

Amendment based on inadequate medical care, he must allege “acts or omissions sufficiently harmful

to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” (Id.) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 106 (1976)). Plaintiff was informed that as an inmate, he has a constitutionally protected right of

meaningful access to the courts under Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 820-21 (1977), but he was also

informed that it is not enough for an inmate to allege some abstract interference; but instead, he must

Case 2:07-cv-02299-KJD -PAL Document 51 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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

show “actual injury” to his rights. (Id.) (citing Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996)). Plaintiff

was advised, that should he choose to amend his Complaint, he is required to demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights, and that the

complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. See Ellis v. Cassidy,

625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Plaintiff was also informed that no liability can attach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is

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

(citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980) and 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The Order additionally instructed that vague and

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to state a claim

under Section 1983. (Id.) (citing Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

Upon dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff thirty (30)

days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed two Motions for

an Extension of Time in which to file his Second Amended Complaint (##21, 23), both of which were

granted. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (#25) on July 17, 2008, and on July 27, 2008,

the Magistrate Judge issued an Order (#27) finding that the Complaint was timely filed within the

extension deadline but did not address the sufficiency of the Second Amended Complaint. Upon

examination here, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to rectify the

deficiencies noted by the Magistrate Judge’s previous Order, fails to comply with the standards set forth

in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Act, and Local Rules of Procedure, and fails to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted based upon the standards set forth above. 

II. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, with attachments, consists of 440 pages. The actual

Second Amended Complaint is twenty-five (25) pages long, and is so vague and rambling, that it is

difficult to ascertain what claims Plaintiff is asserting against which parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 requires

that a party seeking relief must set forth a “short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction”, and a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

Case 2:07-cv-02299-KJD -PAL Document 51 Filed 03/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

relief.” In a long and descriptive narrative, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint alleges inter alia,

incidences involving kidnaping and false imprisonment (see Second Amended Compl. at 8), that his

personal belongings were taken from him while incarcerated, (id) that he was not allowed access to

legal materials, that the conditions in which he was held were crowded, (id at10), and that he suffered

from the deliberate indifference of his legal custodians Additionally, Plaintiff avers that the California

prison system is “an illegal industry” (id at 13) that he was subject to “illegal acts and conspiracies by

the defendants to keep us, me quiet” (id at 14–15), that he is not allowed the “required spiritual items to

practice [his] religion” while incarcerated (id at 17), and that he has been tortured (id at 22.) 

As stated above, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, and finds that

it fails to cure the deficiencies listed in the Magistrate Judge’s initial ruling, that it fails to comport with

the standards set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Act, and Local Rules of

Procedure, and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and the Civil Rights Act for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending Motions are DENIED as moot. 

DATED this 19th day of March 2010.

____________________________________

Kent J. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-02299-KJD -PAL Document 51 Filed 03/22/10 Page 3 of 3