Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01269/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY DALE DRAWHORN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRAIS KOENIG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01269-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at Correctional Training Facility – Soledad, filed this pro se civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis

in a separate order. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 

entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

Case 4:19-cv-01269-HSG Document 9 Filed 04/18/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

necessary; the statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the 

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 

proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 

42, 48 (1988).

B. Complaint

Plaintiff has named as defendants the following individuals: Officer Cuevas, Officer 

Balding, Lieutenant Reed, Officer Murphy, Officer Pineda, Officer Pina, Officer Liberatore, 

Officer Castro, Officer Rae, Officer Garza, and John Does 1–20. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. In the 

complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he has been physically assaulted, threatened, harassed, given 

frivolous 115s (rules violation reports), taunted, laughed at, lied to, denied physical access to the 

law library despite having an active case, had his mail ripped into, had his safety threatened, and 

been disrespected.

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state clearly what each defendant did, when the action 

happened, and how those actions or inactions rise to the level of a federal constitutional violation. 

The lack of detail prevents the Court from determining which claims deserve a response and from 

whom, and also prevents individual defendants from framing a response to the complaint. The 

Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 

1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (“a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the 

pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the 

allegation of other facts”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003) (leave to amend “should be granted more liberally to 

Case 4:19-cv-01269-HSG Document 9 Filed 04/18/19 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Northern District of California

pro se plaintiffs”) (citation omitted). In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must specifically 

identify what each named defendant did or did not do with regard to each separate claim. 

Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice. Plaintiff should not refer to the defendants as a 

group (e.g., “the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant by name and 

link each of them to his claims by explaining what each involved defendant did or failed to do that 

caused a violation of his rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). The 

complaint need not be long. In fact, a brief and clear statement with regard to each claim listing 

each defendant’s actions regarding that claim is preferable. 

The Court notes that some of the incidents described in the complaint do not give rise to 

constitutional claims. Allegations of verbal harassment and abuse fail to state a claim cognizable 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir. 1997) overruled in 

part on other grounds by Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 884–85 (9th Cir. 2008); Rutledge v. 

Arizona Bd. of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981), aff’d sub nom. Kush v. Rutledge, 460 

U.S. 719 (1983); see, e.g., Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996), amended 135 F.3d 

1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (disrespectful and assaultive comments by prison guard not enough to 

implicate 8th Amendment); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (directing 

vulgar language at prisoner does not state constitutional claim). Allegations of mere threats also 

are not cognizable under § 1983. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987) (mere threat 

does not constitute constitutional wrong, nor do allegations that naked threat was for purpose of 

denying access to courts compel contrary result). 

Plaintiff has named as defendants John Does 1–20. As a general rule, the use of “John 

Doe” to identify a defendant is not favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 

1980). However, when the identity of alleged defendants is not known prior to the filing of a 

complaint, the Ninth Circuit has held that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through 

discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 

the identities, or that the complaint should be dismissed on other grounds. Wakefield v. 

Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). In the amended complaint, Plaintiff should

identify the Doe defendants or, in the alternative, submit to the Court an explanation of what he 

Case 4:19-cv-01269-HSG Document 9 Filed 04/18/19 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

has done to try and learn the Doe defendants’ names and why he has been unsuccessful.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to address the 

deficiencies identified above. Within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order, Plaintiff 

shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case 

number used in this order, Case No. C 19-01269 HSG (PR) and the words “AMENDED 

COMPLAINT” on the first page. If using the court form complaint, Plaintiff must answer all the 

questions on the form in order for the action to proceed. Because an amended complaint 

completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all 

the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior 

complaint by reference. 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order in the time 

provided will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

The Clerk shall include two copies of the court’s complaint with a copy of this order to 

Plaintiff. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/18/2019

Case 4:19-cv-01269-HSG Document 9 Filed 04/18/19 Page 4 of 4