Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00716/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00716-1/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

SHERMAN JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-0716 KJN P

vs.

LAURANCE SMITH, et al.,

Defendants. 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

and Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff has 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 prison

trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 10
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

make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to

plaintiff’s prison 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); 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.” Id. 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. Pardus, 551

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 10
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

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

3

U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a complaint

under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, 

id., and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff’s complaint was filed on the form used by the Northern District. In the

caption of the complaint, plaintiff lists as defendants Laurance Smith, John Renwick, Nancy

Ramirez-Sally Domingues, John Foster, and Mark McCarthy. (Id.) Plaintiff identifies these

defendants as public defender, attorney, district attorneys, detective and parole agent. (Id. at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges these defendants subjected plaintiff to “cruel and unusual punishment by false,

testimony, perjured and fabricated evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process and

equal rights violations, and vindictive and misconduct of prosecution all in concert.” (Id.)

As a general rule, a challenge in federal court to the fact of conviction or the

length of confinement must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). A civil rights action, on the other hand,

is appropriate for challenges to the conditions of an inmate’s confinement. Id. at 499. 

Plaintiff’s allegations as to these named defendants are more appropriately

brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Plaintiff is advised that the exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to

the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to

be waived, it must be waived explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3). A1

waiver of exhaustion, thus, may not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion

requirement by providing the highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all

claims before presenting them to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 3 of 10
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

 Plaintiff is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of 2

limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one

year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the

conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the

statute of limitations is tolled while a timely and properly filed application for state postconviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

4

Plaintiff will be provided with the forms necessary to file a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. If plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies through filing in the California 2

Supreme Court and wishes this action to proceed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the court

will vacate the order requiring payment of the $350.00 filing fee once plaintiff files the petition. 

However, it appears plaintiff may also seek to pursue a civil rights action. 

Attached to the complaint is a document entitled “Statement of Case.” In this document, plaintiff

sets forth a laundry list of allegations that took place in three different institutions concerning

various defendants, none of whom were named as defendants in the caption of the complaint.

Plaintiff also raises various allegations concerning medical care at DVI. In order

to state a § 1983 claim for violation of the Eighth Amendment based on inadequate medical care,

plaintiff must allege "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to

serious medical needs." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). Such a claim has two

elements; "the seriousness of the prisoner's medical need and the nature of the defendant's

response to that need." McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1991). 

“The government has an obligation under the Eighth Amendment to provide

medical care for those whom it punishes by incarceration.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131

(9th Cir. 2000). "But not every breach of that duty is of constitutional proportions. In order to

violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there must be

a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’" Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131

(quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.) 

A medical need is “serious” “if the failure to treat the prisoner's condition could

result in further significant injury or the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'” McGuckin,

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 4 of 10
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

at 1059 (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104). Examples of indications of a serious medical need

include “[t]he existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find important and

worthy of comment or treatment; the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an

individual’s daily activities; or the existence of chronic and substantial pain.” McGuckin, 974

F.2d at 1059-60.

Plaintiff must also allege facts that defendant responded to the serious medical

need with deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference may be shown “when prison officials

deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or it may be shown by the way in

which prison physicians provide medical care.” Hutchinson v. U.S., 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir.

1988). Where the claim is based on a delay in treatment, “a prisoner can make 'no claim for

deliberate medical indifference unless the denial was harmful.'” McGuckin at 1060 (quoting

Shapley v. Nevada Board of State Prison Comm'rs, 766 F.2d 404, 407 (9th Cir. 1985)(per

curiam)). The harm caused by the delay need not, however, be “substantial.” McGuckin at 1060

(citing Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1990); also citing Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5-10). 

Mere negligence is insufficient for Eighth Amendment liability. Frost v. Agnos,

152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998). “Prison officials are deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s

serious medical needs when they deny, delay, or intentionally interfere with medical treatment.” 

Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted). Mere differences of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical staff as to

appropriate medical care also do not give rise to a § 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d

1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff may also be attempting to file a civil rights action alleging he was

unconstitutionally imprisoned. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the United States

Supreme Court held that a civil rights action concerning an allegedly unconstitutional conviction

or imprisonment cannot be maintained absent proof "that the conviction or sentence has been

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 5 of 10
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

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal

authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a

writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254." Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. Under Heck, the court is

required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff's favor in this case would necessarily

invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the

plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. Id.; see also Osborne v.

District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District, 423 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (Heck

test applies to civil rights actions for injunctive relief as well as those for money damages).

The court finds the allegations concerning conditions of confinement 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 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 plaintiffs claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff must

clearly identify the named defendants. 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

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 6 of 10
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

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 hereby 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. 

Finally, plaintiff has provided conflicting information as to whether he exhausted

his administrative remedies, i.e. pursuing his grievance through the third level or Director’s level

of review. Although he marked the question “Did you present the facts in your complaint for

review through the grievance procedure?” as “Yes,” he claimed he did not submit any grievances

because he feared retaliation from DVI staff. (Complt. at 1-2.) It appears he may have answered

this section with regard to his claims that are more appropriately brought in a petition for writ of

habeas corpus. He did append a first level health care response regarding his medical claim

concerning Hep-C and eye floaters and flashers dated December 23, 2008. (Complt. at 13.) 

However, it is unclear whether he pursued that grievance through the Director’s level of review.

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). California prisoners or parolees may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must be

presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 7 of 10
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

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. 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 entire action. 

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

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims challenging his parole violation or subsequent conviction

more appropriately brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus are dismissed without

prejudice; Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint is dismissed without prejudice. 

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, filed on the form

used by this district. 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.” The amended complaint must address only claims

concerning conditions of confinement, not claims challenging his

underlying conviction or parole violation. Plaintiff may only raise claims

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 8 of 10
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

he has exhausted through the Director’s level of review. Failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the

dismissal of this action.

5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff the forms necessary to file a civil rights

complaint and the packet necessary to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

DATED: May 26, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

john0716.14

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 9 of 10
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERMAN JOHNSON, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-0716 KJN P

vs.

LAURANCE SMITH, et al., NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Defendants.

____________________________________/

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

order filed :

______________ Amended Complaint OR

______________ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:10-cv-00716-KJN Document 8 Filed 05/27/10 Page 10 of 10