Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01598/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01598-7/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN ALBEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1598 KJN P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. On 

November 13, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted thirty days in 

which to file an amended complaint. After being granted multiple extensions of time, plaintiff 

was granted up to and including May 2, 2016, in which to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff 

did not file an amended complaint by May 2, and on May 10, 2016, the undersigned 

recommended that this action be dismissed. However, on May 10, 2016, plaintiff’s amended 

complaint was entered on the court’s docket. The amended complaint was received by the court 

on May 9, 2016, but was signed by plaintiff on May 4, 2016. Plaintiff declared under penalty of 

perjury that the amended complaint was mailed to the court on April 4, 2016. (ECF No. 21 at 

70.) However, on May 20, 2016, plaintiff filed a declaration stating that due to difficulties 

accessing the law library for photocopying, his amended pleading was not mailed until May 5, 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 13
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

2016. Good cause appearing, the undersigned will vacate the findings and recommendations, and 

screen plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

II. Screening

As plaintiff was previously informed, 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). 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 

liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 

affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 

demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 

to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an 

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is 

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Although supervisory government officials may not be held liable for the unconstitutional 

conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 676 (2009), they may be individually liable under Section 1983 if there exists “either (1) [the 

supervisor’s] personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation; or (2) a sufficient causal 

connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 13
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

v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). The requisite causal connection between a 

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the violation of the prisoner’s constitutional rights can be 

established in a number of ways, including by demonstrating that a supervisor’s own culpable 

action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control of his subordinates was a cause of 

plaintiff's injury. Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 2011); Larez v. City of Los 

Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 646 (9th Cir. 1991). A plaintiff must also show that the supervisor had 

the requisite state of mind to establish liability, which turns on the requirement of the particular 

claim -- and, more specifically, on the state of mind required by the particular claim -- not on a 

generally applicable concept of supervisory liability. Oregon State University Student Alliance v. 

Ray, 699 F.3d 1053, 1071 (9th Cir. 2012).

III. Discussion

Review of plaintiff’s 70 page amended complaint demonstrates that plaintiff did not 

follow the court’s November 13, 2015 order in preparing his amended pleading. Plaintiff 

renewed claims addressed in the court’s prior screening order, including stale allegations based 

on incidents in 2002 and 2003. Plaintiff was previously informed that claims based on incidents 

that took place in 2002 and 2003 are, on their face, barred by the statute of limitations, and 

plaintiff was informed that he should not renew such claims in any amended complaint. (ECF 

No. 8 at 3-5.) Plaintiff again included claims that his wife was subjected to false criminal 

charges. (ECF No. 21 at 31, 69.) As plaintiff was previously advised, he does not have standing 

to pursue claims on his wife’s behalf; she must file her own action.1 (ECF No. 8 at 4 n.3.) 

In addition, plaintiff included numerous allegations extraneous to any claims for relief, 

including discussions about his family, his work history, his mother’s advice, parenting, and his 

future plans. (ECF No. 21 at 61-65.) 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 

 

1

 Moreover, even if plaintiff could raise a cognizable retaliation claim based on such false 

charges, such claim remains time-barred on its face, as the underlying incidents appear to have 

accrued between 2002 and 2004. (ECF No. 8 at 4 n.3.) 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 13
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

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 his amended 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 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. The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain a short and plain 

statement of his claims as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Rather, plaintiff includes a laundry list of allegations concerning incidents that occurred 

from 2002 through 2016. Plaintiff contends that many of these actions were taken in retaliation 

for the alleged attempted murder of sheriff’s deputy Albee on April 13, 2002, despite the jury’s 

subsequent acquittal. However, not all of the named defendants were involved in all of the 

alleged incidents; indeed, many of the named defendants work at different prisons, and the 

incidents occurred in different years. Thus, the myriad claims asserted in the amended complaint 

are not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims 

and defendants. Rule 20(a) provides that all persons may be joined in one action as defendants if 

“any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to 

or arising 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 13
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

5

20(a)(2). Although it appears that plaintiff believes the false information in the CDCR computer 

and on his locator card at the Sacramento County Jail concerning the 2002 attempted murder 

charges for which he was subsequently acquitted is the “same transaction,” because defendants 

allegedly all retaliated against plaintiff because of the charges, plaintiff is mistaken. The court 

previously informed plaintiff what was required to state a cognizable retaliation claim. (ECF No. 

8.) 

Retaliation by a state actor for the exercise of a constitutional right is actionable under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper. Mt. 

Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 283-84 (1977). “Within the prison context, a 

viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) an assertion that a 

state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected 

conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and 

(5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 

408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted); see also Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 

267 (9th Cir. 1997) (retaliation claims require an inmate to show that (1) the prison official acted 

in retaliation for the prisoner’s exercise of a constitutionally-protected right and (2) the action 

“advanced no legitimate penological interest”). To show that the adverse action2 was taken 

because of protected conduct,3there must be evidence linking the alleged retaliation to the 

exercise of a constitutional right. See Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287 (“[I]n this case, the burden 

was properly placed upon [the plaintiff] to show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, 

and that this conduct was a ‘substantial factor’ or to put it in other words, that it was a ‘motivating 

 

2

 For purposes of evaluating a retaliation claim, an adverse action is action that “could chill a 

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity[ ].” Pinard v. 

Clatskanie School Dist., 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006). See also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 

1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

 Prisoners have a constitutional right to file prison grievances and pursue civil rights litigation in 

the courts. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567. Prison officials may not retaliate against prisoners for 

exercising these First Amendment rights. Id. at 568; see also Hines, 108 F.3d at 267 (prisoner 

may not be retaliated against for use of grievance system); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.2d 1276, 1279 

(9th Cir. 1995).

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 13
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

6

factor’ in the [alleged retaliatory conduct]”); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). 

However, retaliation may also be inferred from the timing and nature of the alleged retaliatory 

activities. Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808 (citing Sorrano’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 

(9th Cir. 1989)).

Here, plaintiff’s amended complaint lacks allegations that plaintiff was engaged in 

conduct protected by the First Amendment. Of fundamental import to prisoners are their First 

Amendment “right[s] to file prison grievances,” Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th Cir.

2003), and to “pursue civil rights litigation in the courts,” Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 

461 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, there are no allegations herein regarding actions taken against 

plaintiff because he was attempting to file a grievance or pursue civil litigation. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s numerous retaliation claims against different individuals employed 

at different prisons or jails at various times in different years do not involve the same transaction, 

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and therefore must be brought in separate 

civil rights actions. Plaintiff provides no connection between the incidents and most of the 

defendants, other than his belief that the action taken against him was based on the defendant’s 

alleged knowledge of the attempted murder charge. However, the attempted murder charge does 

not constitute First Amendment protected conduct by plaintiff. Also, the jury’s verdict of 

acquittal does not constitute protected conduct by plaintiff. To state a cognizable retaliation 

claim, plaintiff must identify his own conduct protected under the First Amendment that plaintiff

was engaged in, and allege facts demonstrating that each defendant took adverse action against 

plaintiff because of such protected conduct, and which then chilled plaintiff’s First Amendment 

conduct. Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating that plaintiff’s constitutionally protected 

conduct of filing grievances or lawsuits was a substantial or motivating factor to each defendant’s 

alleged adverse action. In other words, the contemplated protected conduct is plaintiff’s conduct 

protected by the First Amendment, such as plaintiff filing an inmate appeal, grievance, or civil 

lawsuit. Here, plaintiff fails to raise a plausible link between his own protected activity under the 

First Amendment and the alleged adverse actions. See Walker v. Wechsler, 2016 WL 5930420, 

at *6 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2016) (“Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against because of the 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 6 of 13
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

7

facts involved in his underlying criminal conviction -- which does not equate to protected conduct 

for a retaliation claim,” and complaint dismissed for failure to state a cognizable retaliation 

claim); Furrow v. Marberry, 412 Fed. Appx. 880 (7th Cir. 2011) (inmate failed to state a valid 

claim of retaliation under the First Amendment because the inmate failed to plausibly show that 

his transfer to the Special Housing Unit was motivated by a grievance, lawsuit, or other protected 

First Amendment activity of the inmate); see also Hasan v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 400 F.3d 1001, 

1005 (7th Cir. 2005) (no First Amendment right to make a false allegation; therefore, punishment 

for that offense is not unconstitutional retaliation). 

In addition, plaintiff fails to demonstrate a plausible connection between the alleged 

incidents sufficient to suggest a pattern or series of related retaliatory actions. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“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.”) 

Moreover, plaintiff was previously informed that the falsification of disciplinary reports 

does not state a stand-alone constitutional claim. Canovas v. California Dept. of Corrections, 

2014 WL 5699750, n.2 (E.D. Cal. 2014); see, e.g., Lee v. Whitten, 2012 WL 4468420, *4 (E.D. 

Cal. 2012). There is no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly 

accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. Sprouse v. 

Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989) (filing of disciplinary charge against inmate 

actionable because done in retaliation for having filed a grievance.); Freeman v. Rideout, 808 

F.2d 949, 951 (2d Cir. 1986)). “Specifically, the fact that a prisoner may have been innocent of 

disciplinary charges brought against him and incorrectly held in administrative segregation does 

not raise a due process issue. The Constitution demands due process, not error-free decisionmaking.” Jones v. Woodward, 2015 WL 1014257, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Ricker v. Leapley, 

25 F.3d 1406, 1410 (8th Cir. 1994); McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863, 868 (5th Cir. 1983)). 

To the extent plaintiff asserts that he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected liberty 

interest because prison officials imposed discipline that caused him to lose time credits and 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 7 of 13
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

8

extended his stay in prison, he may have a due process claim, but would need to assert such a 

claim in a petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than a civil rights complaint.4 If success on a 

claim would inevitably affect the duration of the prisoner’s confinement -- as may be the case 

where the prisoner claims that time credits were wrongfully taken away and, if restored, would 

result in his earlier release from prison -- that claim must be brought in a habeas action. See

Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 931(9th Cir. July 26, 2016) (en banc). Moreover, unless the 

disciplinary proceedings involve the same individuals named as defendants, plaintiff must 

challenge different disciplinary proceedings in separate actions.

In the “counts” portion of his amended pleading, plaintiff claims that his 5th and 6th 

Amendment rights were violated. The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person. . . shall be 

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. CONST., amend. V. The 

Fifth Amendment “can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, 

investigatory or adjudicatory; and it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably 

believes could be used in a criminal or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.” 

United States v. Bodwell, 66 F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotations and citation omitted). 

In criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment guarantees assistance of counsel to the accused. 

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 685 (1984). The right also includes access to law books, 

witnesses, and other tools necessary to prepare a defense. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1047 

(1989). Here, plaintiff’s allegations do not show that his right against self-incrimination was 

implicated, or that his statements were used against him in a criminal proceeding, or demonstrate 

a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.

Also, plaintiff contends that some of the defendants violated prison regulations. (ECF No. 

66 at 66.) However, section 1983 provides no redress for prison officials’ mere violation of state 

prison regulations. See Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009) (section 1983 

 

4

 Plaintiff alleges that one of the disciplinary hearing officers was defendant Sgt. Epperson, the 

same officer who wrote the inaccurate remarks on the locator card at the jail and who was on duty 

in booking when the April 13, 2002 incident occurred. (ECF No. 21 at 59.) The disciplinary 

hearing must be conducted by a person or body that is “sufficiently impartial to satisfy the Due 

Process Clause.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 571 (1974). However, plaintiff also claims 

he is currently suing Sgt. Epperson, ostensibly in a separate action since plaintiff did not include 

this claim in the counts portion of his amended pleading. 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 8 of 13
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

9

claims must be premised on violation of federal constitutional right); Sweaney v. Ada Cnty., 

Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (section 1983 creates cause of action for violation of 

federal law); Lovell v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 90 F.3d 367, 370-71 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal and 

state law claims should not be conflated; to the extent the violation of a state law amounts to a 

deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by the federal 

Constitution, section 1983 offers no redress) (quotation marks omitted).

Finally, in count III, plaintiff alleges that defendants Harrison, Nuckles and Briddle 

coerced plaintiff to dismiss his civil actions against Deputies Albee and Green, allegedly in 

violation of plaintiff’s 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights. (ECF No. 21 at 69.) However, 

plaintiff fails to provide sufficient factual allegations to demonstrate a constitutional violation 

occurred. 

Thus, for the above reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed. 

IV. Leave to Amend

It is not clear that plaintiff can amend to state a cognizable civil rights claim. In an 

abundance of caution, the court grants plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. 

However, plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint that raises allegations 

concerning only related claims. Plaintiff must raise other, unrelated5claims in a separate civil 

rights action. Plaintiff is not required to file a second amended complaint, but may choose to 

voluntarily dismiss this action.

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. 

 

5

 A plaintiff may properly assert multiple claims against a single defendant. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 

18. In addition, a plaintiff may join multiple defendants in one action where “any right to relief is 

asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the 

same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences” and “any question of law 

or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 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 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 prisoner may file without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g).” George, 507 F.3d at 607. 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 9 of 13
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

10

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the amended pleading 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 

at 743. Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

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

make plaintiff’s second 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 a second amended complaint, the 

original and amended pleadings no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in a second

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and 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). California prisoners or parolees may appeal “departmental 

policies, decisions, actions, conditions, or omissions that have a material adverse effect on the[ir] 

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 

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 10 of 13
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

11

signing a second 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. 

Finally, the court has revised the form for filing a civil rights complaint by a prisoner. 

Because plaintiff’s amended complaint was unduly long, plaintiff is required to file any second 

amended complaint on the form used by this district. In addition, plaintiff’s amended pleading is 

limited to 20 pages. Plaintiff shall not exceed the page limit and is not required to append 

exhibits to his amended pleading.

6

 Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of 

this action. 

V. Conclusion

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The May 10, 2016 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22) are vacated;

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

3. 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; and

b. An original and one copy of the Second Amended Complaint, or his request to 

voluntarily dismiss this action.

Plaintiff’s second 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 second 

amended complaint shall also comply with this court’s November 13, 2015 order and the instant 

order. The second amended complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case 

and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be 

filed on the court’s current form and shall not exceed 20 pages.

////

 

6

 Plaintiff referred to numerous exhibits in his amended complaint, but did not append any 

exhibits. While exhibits are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), 

exhibits are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). If this 

action reaches a juncture at which the submission of evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., 

summary judgment or trial), plaintiff will have the opportunity at that time to submit evidence.

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 11 of 13
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

12

Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in the 

dismissal of this action.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 

action by a prisoner.

Dated: October 18, 2016

/smit1598.14b

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 12 of 13
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN ALBEE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1598 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

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

filed______________.

_____________ Second Amended Complaint (Must be filed on court’s

form and shall not exceed 20 pages)

OR

_____________ Plaintiff chooses to voluntarily dismiss this action.

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-01598-JAM-KJN Document 24 Filed 10/18/16 Page 13 of 13