Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01111/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01111-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C. ALLENBY, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 01111 GSA 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

 

1

Plaintiff filed his consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on July 31, 2014 (ECF No. 5).

Case 1:14-cv-01111-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 4
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

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, a civil detainee housed by the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) at Coalinga 

State Hospital, brings this action against defendants employed by the DSH at Coalinga. Plaintiff 

names the following individual defendants: Cliff Allenby; Audrey King; Brandon Price; Karen 

Reed. Plaintiff claims that he was denied access to the courts in violation of the First 

Amendment. 

Plaintiff sets forth vague allegations regarding access to the courts. Plaintiff refers to a 

policy that allows residents 25 sheets per packet of paper, yet he only receives 4 sheets, 

necessitating a return to the nurse’s station to ask for more sheets. Plaintiff also alleges that he 

has to “beg the housing unit officials to get in contact wit trust and provide account leggers and 

proper postage plaintiff has hade cases cloused due to not being able to reach courts on time 

[sic].” Plaintiff alleges no specific conduct as to each of the defendants. 

A. Access to Courts

To plead a cognizable claim for denial of access to the courts, Plaintiff must allege the 

denial of such access caused him an “actual injury” to a non-frivolous claim regarding a 

conviction or conditions of confinement. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-55 (1996); Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999). “Actual 

injury is defined as a specific instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the 

courts.” Vandelft v. Moses, 31 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir. 1994)(internal quotations omitted), cert.

denied, 516 U.S. 825 (1995). 

Here, Plaintiff has wholly failed to allege any “actual injury” resulting from the alleged 

denial of access to the courts. Plaintiff makes no reference to any specific case that was 

dismissed because of the conduct of any of the individual defendants. A vague allegation that a 

Case 1:14-cv-01111-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 4
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

case was dismissed fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff must allege conduct on behalf of 

each defendant indicating that such conduct prevented Plaintiff from bringing a non- frivolous 

claim. Plaintiff has failed to do so. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, 

however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint. 

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. 

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

Case 1:14-cv-01111-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 4
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

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-01111-EPG Document 8 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 4