Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01789/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01789-0/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

LIONEL FARLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1789 FCD GGH P

vs.

L. HALL, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On August 30, 2007, defendant

Hall removed this action from state court. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local

Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Defendant Hall has requested that the court screen this action. Good cause

appearing, this request is granted.

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). 

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 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

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 where 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.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

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

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Hall used excessive force against him in violation

of the Eighth Amendment when he transported plaintiff to the shower. This claim states a

colorable claim for relief against defendant Hall pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b).

Plaintiff also alleges that when defendant Hall used excessive force against him,

he was motivated to retaliate against him for filing a civil action against other prison officials. 

There are five basic elements to a retaliation claim: 1) an assertion that a state

actor took some adverse action against a prisoner; 2) because; 3) the prisoner engaged in

protected conduct; 4) resulting in the chilling of the prisoner’s First Amendment rights; and 5)

the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate penological goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 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

3

F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2003).

Mere conclusions of hypothetical retaliation will not suffice; a prisoner must

“allege specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional

rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 562 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff alleges no specific facts in support of his retaliation claim. Rather, his

retaliation claim against defendant Hall is vague and conclusory. Plaintiff does not even allege

that defendant knew about his legal action against the other prison officials. Accordingly, this

claim is dismissed with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); 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 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

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.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 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

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Hall is dismissed for the reasons

discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of

service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that

these defendants be dismissed from this action.

2. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor,

the court will make further orders.

DATED: 10/2/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

far1789.ame

Case 2:07-cv-01789-KJD-PAL Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 Page 4 of 4