Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01857/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01857-10/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

EARNEST C. WOODS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1857 GEB EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Earnest C. Woods, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and proceeds in forma pauperis. On June 3, 2008, the court dismissed this action

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 on the basis that the complaint was prolix and obscure

and that plaintiff had therefore failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Dckt.

Nos. 26, 35. Judgment was duly entered. Dckt. No. 38. 

Plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Dckt. No.

40. The Ninth Circuit determined that the complaint should not have been dismissed on this

basis, finding that the complaint “delineated a number of claims with sufficient specificity and

detail,”and remanded the action to this court “for additional proceedings consistent with [its]

disposition.” Dckt. No. 43 at 2. Accordingly, the court has re-screened the January 31, 2007

amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 12
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

For the reasons set forth below and in the Ninth Circuit’s remand, the court finds that

plaintiff states a cognizable claim against defendants Cervantes for retaliation in violation of the

First Amendment. The court finds that plaintiff’s remaining claims are either not cognizable or

not properly joined in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The court recommends that those claims be dismissed without leave to amend and this action

proceed on plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Cervantes.

I. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

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

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 12
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

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

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950. 

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)

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff names 42 individuals as defendants: Warden Tom L. Carey; Acting Warden

D.K. Sisto; Assistant Warden D.R. Johns; Captain N. Fry; Appeals Coordinator Cervantes;

Appeals Coordinator Corioso; CCI Baker; CCI Jakura; Sgt. Stubbs; Sgt. Justin; Sgt. Fowler; Sgt.

Gomez; Sgt. Ferduson; Librarian Kosher; Librarian Supervisor De Lap; civilian William Wright;

Batchelor; Hill; York; Cook; Schroeder; Slagubang; Clay; Smith; Freitas; Boyden; Sable;

Stufflebeam; Elam; Fregosa; Velesques; Robinson; Lt. Samms; Lt. Young; Lt. Chirilia; Lt.

Fetch; Dr. Chen; Dr. Thor; RN De Chant; L. Martin (NP); MTA Sinchobich; and Ponce. Dckt.

No. 24 at 23. In the body of his complaint, plaintiff also includes allegations naming Broyles,

Bardon, “psych techs” Smith and Pearson, Quevas and Noriega. Id. at 8, 13-14, 23. 

Plaintiff alleges that Warden Carey “has trained his staff to automatically white-wash

inmate grievances which allow[s] prison officials to have no concern for ever having to be

repremanded [sic].” Id. at 2. Specifically, plaintiff claims that Carey has failed to properly train

and supervise appeals coordinator Cervantes. Plaintiff provides a history of grievances he has

filed against numerous prison officials. His grievances cover a wide range of issues and span a

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 12
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

period exceeding two years. They consist of the following: 1) an exhausted appeal against

correctional officer Broyles for writing a false disciplinary report; 2) an exhausted appeal based

on the accounting/trust staff refusing to allow plaintiff to attend the canteen even though money

was in his account; 3) an exhausted appeal against York for refusing to allow plaintiff to attend

Jewish services; 4) an exhausted appeal against Batchelor and Hill for accosting and threatening

plaintiff; 5) an exhausted appeal against Broyles and librarian Kosher for violating his access to

the library and the courts; 6) an appeal against Batchelor and Hill for filing a fraudulent

disciplinary report that resulted in placement in administrative segregation; 7) an appeal against

Batchelor and Hill for reading plaintiff’s mail; 8) an appeal screened out as untimely, and against

appeals coordinator Cervantes for admonishing plaintiff for excessive filings; 9) an appeal

against Sgt. Fowler for telling plaintiff to go to administrative segregation and informing

plaintiff that he had officers Hill and Sable roll up plaintiff’s property; 10) an appeal against

Bardon for filing a fraudulent disciplinary report and against Fowler who said he would put

plaintiff in administrative segregation; 11) an exhausted appeal against Warden Carey for

allowing a civilian to search and steal plaintiff’s property, including, including a Kosher meal

and prescription medication; 12) an appeal that was “illegally screened out” by the appeals

coordinator, and against Stufflebeam and librarian Kosher for violating his right to access the

library and denying him preferred legal user status when he had a court deadline; 13) an

exhausted appeal against Freitas, Sgt. Stubbs and Lt. Chirilia for feeding plaintiff cold Kosher

meals; 14) an appeal screened out as untimely against Smith and Clay for excessive force; 15) an

appeal against appeals coordinator Cervantes for retaliating against plaintiff by delaying his

appeals for technical errors; 16) an exhausted appeal against Clay for dropping plaintiff’s Kosher

meal on the ground and stealing his food; 17) an appeal screened out by Cervantes, and against

Batchelor, Jackera, and Carey for placing plaintiff in administrative segregation without any

substantial evidence; 18) an appeal that was screened out, and against Captain N. Fry for

violating plaintiff’s due process rights; 19) an appeal against appeals coordinator Cervantes for

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 12
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

charging plaintiff for a blank form; 20) an appeal against Schroeder regarding a religious and

racial epithet; 21) an appeal against Baker for refusing to allow him the opportunity to review his

central file and trying to suppress evidence of plaintiff’s innocence before the Board of Prison

Terms; 22) an appeal regarding being unable to attend the canteen even though he had money in

his account because of an erroneous disciplinary report; 23) an appeal against Smith for

excessive force and denying plaintiff a shower; 24) an appeal against Cook regarding desecration

of plaintiff’s Kosher meal and denial of a shower on Yom Kippur; and 25) an appeal regarding a

conversation with Lt. Fletch and how Smith, Fanning and Schroeder forced plaintiff to eat cold

food. Id. at 6-12. 

Plaintiff’s complaint also includes allegations relating to appeals he filed regarding his

medical needs. These include: 1) an exhausted appeal regarding whether plaintiff should stop

taking Naproxen and Vioxx; 2) an appeal regarding staff dispensing the wrong prescription of

Tagament, which was responded to by L. Martin (NP), to which plaintiff alleges, conflicted with

his doctor’s orders; and 3) an appeal against “psych techs” Smith and Pearson, who failed to

dispense the proper amount of prescribed tablets to plaintiff, and against other staff who refused

plaintiff medical treatment/medication for six days, which forced plaintiff to call for emergency

attention. Plaintiff alleges further that De Chant knew about these six days and refused to talk to

Dr. Noriega about it, which exacerbated the problem. Additionally, plaintiff claims correctional

officer Quevas retaliated against him for filing an appeal, by searching plaintiff’s cell and

confiscating his medication. Id. at 12-15. Plaintiff suggests that years of taking Ibuprofen and

Naproxen caused his Esophagitis, but that Dr. Chen and Dr. Thor stated that these pain relievers

were not the cause of plaintiff’s stomach problems. Id. at 15-16. 

Plaintiff also alleges that he was placed in administrative segregation as a result of an

“illegal” disciplinary report written by Fregosa. Plaintiff claims his due process rights, as well as

his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, were violated at the related disciplinary hearing. Id. at

17.

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 12
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

Plaintiff claims staff at California State Prison Solano transferred plaintiff to the

Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”), knowing there was no Kosher meal program in place, in

violation of the Cooper Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff claims he was placed in administrative

segregation and was denied yard privileges/outdoor exercise for five months because he is a

Hebrew/Israelite. Plaintiff claims he did not receive all of his property after being transferred to

CTF and that staff at Solano stole it. Id. at 17-18. 

III. Improperly Joined Claims 

The incidents alleged in plaintiff’s complaint encompass events alleged to have occurred

at both California State Prison Solano and the Correction Training Facility. They span a multiyear period and concern everything from false disciplinary reports, religious exercise, access to

the courts, retaliation, excessive force, and denial of medical care, among many others. The

incidents are related in that plaintiff appears to allege that defendants Carey and Cervantes were

responsible for the way in which many of plaintiff’s administrative appeals regarding the

incidents listed above were handled. However, most of the incidents are factually distinct from

the others, in that they rely on a discrete sets of facts regarding the conduct of separate

defendants. 

Plaintiff may not bring all of the claims alleged in the complaint in a single lawsuit. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) allows a plaintiff to assert multiple claims when they are

against a single defendant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to join

multiple defendants to a lawsuit where the right to relief arises out of the same “transaction,

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to

all defendants will arise in the action.” However, unrelated claims against different defendants

must be pursued in separate lawsuits. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

This rule is not only intended “not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple

defendant] suit produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the

Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 6 of 12
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

prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” Id. 

The court will allow plaintiff to proceed in this action on his claim against defendant

Cervantes for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. The court finds that the remaining

claims are either not cognizable or have been improperly joined in a single lawsuit. 

Plaintiff’s complaint includes a long list of unrelated claims that simply do not belong in the

same lawsuit and this defect cannot be corrected by amendment. With the exception of

plaintiff’s claim against defendant Carey, as explained below, all remaining claims should be

dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff bringing them in separate lawsuits. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks to impose liability on Cervantes for allegedly retaliating

against plaintiff because of inmate grievances plaintiff filed against Cervantes or other prison

officials, plaintiff has state a cognizable First Amendment retaliation claim. However, the

alleged failings of Cervantes with respect to plaintiff’s inmate appeals cannot support a claim for

relief for a due process violation. There are no constitutional requirements regarding how a

grievance system is operated. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)

(holding that prisoner’s claimed loss of a liberty interest in the processing of his appeals does not

violate due process because prisoners lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific

prison grievance system). To the extent plaintiff alleges a due process claim against Cervantes,

it should be dismissed without leave to amend. 

While plaintiff alleges a related claim, that defendant Carey failed to properly train and

supervise defendant Cervantes, plaintiff indicates that he only names Carey because of his

supervisory role. See Dckt. No. 24 at 2. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. 

Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). That is, 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). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to

. . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. A

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 7 of 12
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

supervisor may be liable “for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor

participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff does not allege with any

particularity that defendant Carey personally violated plaintiff’s rights. Nor does plaintiff allege

with sufficient factual detail that Carey directed or authorized any actions of Cervantes that

amounted to a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948; Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s claims against Carey must therefore be

dismissed, but plaintiff will be given leave to amend to state a cognizable claim against Carey

that is related to his claim against Cervantes. 

Thus, plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Cervantes and pursue his

retaliation claim against him or he may delay serving Cervantes and attempt to state a cognizable

and related claim against defendant Carey. 

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

defendant Carey, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint. However,

if plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendant Cervantes, against whom he has stated a

cognizable claim for relief, then within 30 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 defendant Carey, without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. 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.

It 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. 

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 8 of 12
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

9

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (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).

It must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same

transaction requirements are satisfied). 

 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). 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 Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of

these instructions. 

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 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 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). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff 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 claim

against defendant Cervantes.

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendant Carey 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 defendant Carey. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state a cognizable retaliation

claim against defendant Cervantes. 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 complaint filed January 31, 2007,

one USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on defendant Cervantes. Within 30

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 two copies of the

January 31, 2007 complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for

service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant

Cervantes will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Rule

12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s

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

defendant Carey without prejudice.

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

dismissed.

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s due process claim against

defendant Cervantes be dismissed with prejudice and that all remaining claims be dismissed

without prejudice to plaintiff bringing them in separate civil rights actions. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 10 of 12
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

11

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: April 26, 2010.

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 11 of 12
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

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EARNEST C. WOODS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1857 GEB EFB P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al.. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

In accordance with the court’s order filed ______________________, plaintiff hereby

elects to:

(1) ______ consent to the dismissal of defendant Carey without prejudice, and

submits the following documents:

 1 completed summons form

 1 completed forms USM-285 

 2 copies of the January 31, 2007 Amended Complaint

OR

(2) ______ delay serving defendant Cervantes and files a second amended complaint

in an attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendant Carey.

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01857-GEB-EFB Document 47 Filed 04/26/10 Page 12 of 12