Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00794/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00794-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR JOSEPH RODELLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0794 EFB P 

vs.

TERRY JACKSON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2).

The court will screen plaintiff’s October 9, 2009 amended complaint, which supersedes

the original complaint. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). For the limited purposes

of § 1915A screening, the court finds that the amended complaint states cognizable excessive

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 7
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

force claims against defendants Terry Jackson and Gary Hibbits. The amended complaint does

not state cognizable claims against defendants Sgt. Marsh, Jose Flores or Scott Rowley.

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). Plaintiff names Marsh, Flores and Rowley as defendants, but he does not

include any factual allegations showing how any of them were personally involved in violating

his federal rights. Claims against these defendants must therefore be dismissed.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Jackson and Hibbits and pursue his

claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to state

cognizable claims against defendants Marsh, Flores, or Rowley.

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

defendants Marsh. Flores or Rowley, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his

complaint. However, if plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Jackson and

Hibbits, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 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 defendants Marsh, Flores and

Rowley without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint 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

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 7
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

defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of

a federal constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (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). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b).”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff

must eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all preambles, introductions, argument, speeches,

explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses,

summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming

dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton,

523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to

read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 7
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

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these

instructions. 

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

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

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 220; see Loux v, 375 F.2d at 57. Once plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a second 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

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 4 of 7
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

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee 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

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, including his claims against defendants

Jackson and Hibbits. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall

be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Claims against defendants Marsh, Flores and Rowley 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 these defendants. Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his

complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable excessive

force claims against defendants Jackson and Hibbits. 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 pleading filed

October 9, 2009, two USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants

Jackson and Hibbits. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached

Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 5 of 7
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

forms, and three copies of the October 9, 2009 amended complaint. The court will transmit them

to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants

Jackson and Hibbits will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines

stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to

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

Marsh, Flores and Rowley without prejudice.

5. Plaintiff’s April 13, 2009 motion for summary judgment is denied as both defective

and premature. See L.R. 260(a).

6. Failure to comply with this order will result this action being dismissed. 

Dated: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 6 of 7
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR JOSEPH RODELLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0794 EFB P 

vs.

TERRY JACKSON, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the October 9, 2009 Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-00794-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 03/10/10 Page 7 of 7