Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01463/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01463-0/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

TONIE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1463 WBS EFB P

vs.

ARONG, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff

must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his trust

account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall forward

payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account

exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants Maxham and Rendon. See 28

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 1 of 6
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

U.S.C. § 1915A.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendants Arong, Davidson,

Wedell, Mitchell, Latteri, Williams, Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno, Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May,

MacNeil, Knipp, Bunnell, or Kernan.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Maxham and Rendon and pursue his

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

a cognizable claim against defendants Arong, Davidson, Wedell, Mitchell, Latteri, Williams,

Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno, Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May, MacNeil, Knipp, Bunnell, or

Kernan.

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

defendants Arong, Davidson, Wedell, Mitchell, Latteri, Williams, Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno,

Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May, MacNeil, Knipp, Bunnell, or Kernan, he has 30 days so to do. He

is not obligated to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Maxham and Rendon, 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 Arong, Davidson, Wedell, Mitchell,

Latteri, Williams, Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno, Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May, MacNeil, Knipp,

Bunnell, or Kernan without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a 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). 

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 2 of 6
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

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 his 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, 1177-78 (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 1179-80 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. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 3 of 6
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

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

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

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first 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

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

Maxham and Rendon. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff is 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

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 4 of 6
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

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Arong, Davidson, Wedell, Mitchell, Latteri, Williams,

Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno, Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May, MacNeil, Knipp, Bunnell, or Kernan

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

obliged to amend his complaint.

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

defendants Maxham and Rendon. 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 July 23, 2007, two

USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Maxham and Rendon. 

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 forms, and three copies of

the July 23, 2007, complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for

service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Maxham and Rendon 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 Arong, Davidson, Wedell,

Mitchell, Latteri, Williams, Heintschel, Garcia, Moreno, Pereira, Stiles, Hawkins, May,

MacNeil, Knipp, Bunnell, or Kernan without prejudice.

Dated: September 21, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 5 of 6
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONIE ELMORE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1463 WBS EFB P

vs.

ARONG, 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

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01463-WBS-KJN Document 6 Filed 09/21/07 Page 6 of 6