Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00644/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00644-0/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 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KEITH MICHAEL CASSELLS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BALRAJ SINGH DHILLON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0644-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application 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). 

Screening Standards 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

Case 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP Document 6 Filed 02/12/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Screening Order 

 Plaintiff’s complaint includes unrelated claims that cannot be properly joined in a single 

lawsuit. First, it alleges that defendant Dhillon was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious 

medical needs – major neck and back pain -- when he placed plaintiff in a double bunk where 

plaintiff could not sit up straight. ECF No. 1 at 3. Defendant Dhillon also allegedly discontinued 

a previous order allowing plaintiff to have a bedside stool. Id. Plaintiff claims to have suffered 

Case 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP Document 6 Filed 02/12/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

under these conditions for ten days. Id. Plaintiff also holds defendant Austin accountable for 

these allegations, but her involvement in these medical decisions is unclear. Id. at 5. Second, it 

alleges that defendants Arriaga and Gutierrez violated plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free 

speech by rejecting plaintiff’s administrative appeal against defendant Dhillon because it used the 

term “half-ass.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff also speculates that they rejected his appeal to retaliate against 

him for filing it in the first place. Id. at 5. 

It is well settled that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims against 

separate defendants: 

“The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as 

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 

party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a 

single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s claims against Dhillon and Austin 

encompass events distinct from the claims alleged against defendants Arriaga and Guittierez. 

Indeed, each subset of allegations poses entirely separate questions – both legally and factually – 

from the others and are ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. 

 Moreover, plaintiff’s allegations lack sufficient detail to establish a claim at all. Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference requires a showing that the defendant, acting with a state of 

mind more blameworthy than negligence, denied, delayed, or interfered with the treatment of 

plaintiff’s serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835 (1994); Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The indifference to medical needs must be substantial; mere 

malpractice, or even gross negligence, does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle, 

429 U.S. at 106. Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any such allegations. 

Further, inmates have no standalone rights with respect to the administrative grievance 

process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003); Williams v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv00468-0WW-YNP PC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107920, 2009 WL 3789597, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 

10, 2009) (“Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in the vindication of his administrative 

claims.”). And while prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison 

Case 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP Document 6 Filed 02/12/20 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 

27 

28 

4 

officials and to be free from retaliation for doing so, argumentative conversation does not rise to 

constitutionally protected speech. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Young 

v. Moreno, No. CV 10-9699-JST (SH), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70572, at *14-16 n.6 (May 8, 

2012, C.D. Cal.). 

The court recognizes that plaintiff has filed various documents related to his prison 

grievances, medical care, and rules violation reports. See ECF No. 1 at 8-25. The court declines, 

however, to look to these documents for claims that are not clearly raised by the complaint itself. 

See Davis v. Carlton, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174334, *18 n. 1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (“The 

Court will not comb through attached exhibits seeking to determine whether a claim possibly 

could have been stated where the pleading itself does not state a claim.”). 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any 

amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 

substantial way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. 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). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 

closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 

U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

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

George, 507 F.3d at 607. Nor, as he was warned above, may he bring multiple, unrelated claims 

against more than one defendant. Id.

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

Case 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP Document 6 Filed 02/12/20 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 

27 

28 

5 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith. 

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days of 

service of this order. 

4. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in the 

dismissal of this action for the reasons stated herein. 

DATED: February 11, 2020. 

Case 2:19-cv-00644-KJM-JDP Document 6 Filed 02/12/20 Page 5 of 5