Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00198/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00198-5/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. K. SKRIBNER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00198-OWW-LJO P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH RULE 8

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND COMPLAINT FORM TO PLAINTIFF

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Shaun Darnell Garland (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

February 22, 2006. 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 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

27

28

2

B. Plaintiff’s Complaint

1. Rule 8(a)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby

the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may

ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what

the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. .shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). In

order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant with

some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

Plaintiff’s complaint is sixty-two pages long, not including exhibits, and includes many

extraneous facts. It is plaintiff’s duty to succinctly and concisely set forth his claims against each

defendant. It is not the duty of the court to mine an unnecessarily lengthy pleading and attempt to

piece together plaintiff’s claims for him. The purpose of a complaint is to place defendants notice

as to the bases forthe claims against. The complaint is not intended as a vehicle for plaintiff to recite

the entire history of his claims. The court simply does not have the resources to contend with a

complaint that is out of compliance with Rule 8. Plaintiff is assured that if he errs on the side of

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 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

27

28

3

being too conclusory in his amended complaint, the court will provide him with notice of the

deficiencies and grant him leave to amend to add whichever facts are necessary to cure the identified

deficiencies. 

Regarding exhibits, plaintiff may submit exhibits in support of his complaint but is not

required to. If plaintiff submits exhibits, they must be incorporated by reference and if they consist

of multiple pages, it is plaintiff’s obligation to identify which section of the exhibit is being referred

to. Less is sometimes more, so given that plaintiff is not required to support his allegations with

documentary evidence at this stage, he may wish to consider whether or not he needs to submit

extensive exhibits. 

The court shall, by this order, dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, and plaintiff shall be granted

leave to file an amended complaint. Based on a review of plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff is provided

with following legal standards to guide him in drafting his amended complaint. 

1. Retaliation 

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to petition

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance

a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

2. Access to the Courts

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518

U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil

rights actions. Id. at 354. Claims for denial of access to the courts may arise from the frustration

or hindrance of “a litigating opportunity yet to be gained” (forward-looking access claim) or from

the loss of a meritorious suit that cannot now be tried (backward-looking claim). Christopher v. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 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

27

28

4

Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 412-15, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 2185-87 (2002). To prevail on a claim, the plaintiff

must show that he suffered an actual injury by being shut out of court. Id. at 415; Lewis, 518 at 351.

3. Use of Inmate Appeals Process

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the defendant acted under

color of state law and (2) that the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or

federal statutes. Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986). “[A prison]

grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the

inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (citing Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568

F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no

liberty interest in processing of appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure);

Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no

liberty interest on prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Actions in

reviewing prisoner’s administrative appeal cannot serve as the basis for liability under a § 1983

action. Buckley, 997 F.2d at 495. 

4. Conspiracy 

In the context of conspiracy claims brought pursuant to section 1983, such a complaint must

“allege [some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” Buckey v.

County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must allege that defendants conspired or

acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Sykes v.

State of California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974).

5. Supervisory Liability

Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for the actions

of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. When the named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant and the claimed constitutional violation

must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for

relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts indicating that the

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 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

27

28

 In a motion filed on November 13, 2006, which is addressed in a separate order, plaintiff indicates that if

1

his complaints are not in the proper order, he seeks to be allowed to add new claims concerning the interference with

his filings. (Doc. 8, pg. 8.) Plaintiff may not do so. Any claims that accrued as a result of the filing of this action

must be brought in a separate action. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion of

claims must occur prior to filing suit) Further, plaintiff has not suffered any actual injury relating to this action and

any attempt by plaintiff to allege that his constitutionally protected right to access the courts was interfered with

would be frivolous. 

5

defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient

that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the

constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations

omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards

are broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v.

Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993).

C. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint shall be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). The court will

provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified

by the court in this order. Plaintiff may not add any new claims in his amended complaint. If 1

plaintiff adds new claims, the court will strike the amended complaint from the record.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint how the conditions complained

of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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 an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 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

27

28

6

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a);

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint that complies with the directives in this order;

4. Plaintiff may not add any new claims; and

5. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty days, this action will be

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and failure to obey

a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00198-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 12/18/06 Page 6 of 6