Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01402-3/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

Plaintiff’s complaint contains general language and a detailed discussion of the history

1

of the adult authority, community release board, and the board of prison terms and has blanks

where plaintiff has typed in information pertinent to him, including such information as his

name, crime, release date. Additionally, the “previous record of violence section” contains

reference to a “Sadistic Sexual Offense, “ under which petitioner has typed “not applicable.” 

(Am. Pet. 11:6-9.) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Calvin L. Jones

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1402 MCE CMK P

vs.

California Board of Prison Terms, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed July 26, 2005, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

I. Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff has been incarcerated since 1983, when he was convicted of first degree

murder. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that the procedures used by the California State Parole

Board violate the Constitution. Just like his first complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint is

form complaint. Plaintiff states that he has had eight parole suitability hearings; the most recent 1

Case 2:05-cv-01402-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 5
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

in July 2005. All eight hearings have resulted in a finding by the Board of Prison Terms (Board)

that plaintiff is unsuitable for parole. 

Plaintiff challenges the Board’s denial of parole. He seeks declaratory relief and

injunctive relief. Specifically, plaintiff seeks an order from this court entering “a permanent

injunction order defendant’s [sic] to grant to Plaintiff an immediate parole hearing...” As

plaintiff seeks nothing more than injunctive and declaratory relief, he may proceed with his

claim under § 1983. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005). 

II. Discussion

A. Screening

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 

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. See 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.

See 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)); Palmer

Case 2:05-cv-01402-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 5
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

The court finds this assertion in support of plaintiff’s parole suitability particularly 2

interesting as plaintiff was convicted of the murder of his male business partner. 

3

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 Hosp. 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). 

B. Failure to Allege Denial of Due Process

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that the Board denial of parole

violated his right to due process. Plaintiff puts forth a list of “circumstances that tend to show

[his] suitability [for parole].” For instance, plaintiff states that he has no juvenile record, a stable

social history, a family that supports him–plaintiff has included several letter of support from

family members in his exhibits, has a low risk of recidivism due to his age and has realistic plans

for the future. Am. Compl. 6, 7, & 8.) Plaintiff also asserts that he was suffering from “Battered

Woman’s Syndrome at the time he committed his crime. (Am. Compl. 8:1-7.) Plaintiff has 2

included numerous exhibits of psychological exams, letters of support and decisions of the

Board. 

Plaintiff does not, however, tell the court in his amended complaint whether or

not he presented all of these factors to the Board for consideration in granting plaintiff parole. 

Biggs v. Terhune, 334 F.3d 910, 914. Plaintiff also does not set forth what factors the Board

relied upon in denying his individual application for parole. Even construing the complaint in a

light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court cannot find that plaintiff has alleged that he

presented evidence to the Board which tended to weigh heavily in support of finding plaintiff

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01402-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Perhaps the 100 plus pages of evidence reveals what evidence was presented to the 3

Board, however, due to limited judicial resources the court cannot comb through the evidence to

find allegations sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim. 

4

 suitable for parole. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 §§ 2402(d)(2). In short, the court cannot 3

determine if plaintiff was denied the required due process in his parole proceedings. See Biggs,

334 F.3d at 914. Plaintiff will be given leave to file a second amended complaint. 

C. Guidelines for Filing Amended Complaint

Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he should not include

“immaterial background information.” See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.

1996). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal observed that the Federal Rules require that a

complaint consist of “simple, concise, and direct” averments. See id. In other words, the court is

far more interested in a concise averment of plaintiff’s alleged constitutional deprivations than it

is in the history of the Board. 

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 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 a second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended

Case 2:05-cv-01402-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/24/06 Page 4 of 5
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

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended

complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: May 23, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01402-MCE -CMK Document 9 Filed 05/24/06 Page 5 of 5