Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04706/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-04706-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

ERIC MOSS,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

VINCENT CULLEN, WILLIAM

RODRIGUEZ, E. C. BROWN,

WILLIAMS, MINCY, R.N. DIXON,

DR. L. PRATT, LT. FOOTMAN,

HECKER, VALDEZ, DONAHUE,

SFT. STOLENBERG, DR.

DOUGLAS PETERSON, and

JOHN/JANE DOES,

Defendants. /

No. C 11-4706 PJH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se civil

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed with

leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

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). 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. Id. at

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).

Case 3:11-cv-04706-WHO Document 10 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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." "Specific facts are not 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). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . 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. The United States Supreme Court has recently explained

the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations. When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine

whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct.

1937, 1950 (2009). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff is a former California prisoner who formerly was incarcerated at the La

Palma Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona. He has prostate cancer and received spinal

surgery in 2009. He claims that defendant Peterson, the Chief Medical Officer at La Palma,

caused him to be to be transferred back to California to save the costs of medical

treatment. His other claims are against different defendants and involve events at San

Quentin. As stated in the prior screening order, joinder of the Arizona claim with the San

Quentin claims is improper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Because venue is not proper

Case 3:11-cv-04706-WHO Document 10 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

here for the Arizona claims, the claims are dismissed

Plaintiff states he was granted a lower bunk chrono in 2007 and when he was

transferred back to California to San Quentin in 2010, he was forced to live on an upper

bunk. Plaintiff identifies several defendants who placed him on an upper bunk. However,

plaintiff provides no details how long he was placed on an upper bunk or the specific

actions of the defendants. That his new prison did not honor an upper bunk chrono fails to

set forth a claim. Plaintiff also states he fell from the upper bunk, and suffered new injuries. 

While this may set forth a viable Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must describe in more

detail the injuries he suffered and the specific actions of the defendants involved.

CONCLUSION

1. The amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend in accordance with

the standards set forth above solely regarding plaintiff’s claim involving the lower bunk

chrono. The amended complaint must be filed no later than February 4, 2013, and must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely

replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not

incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.11\Moss4706.dwlta2.wpd

Case 3:11-cv-04706-WHO Document 10 Filed 01/04/13 Page 3 of 3