Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00501-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH WHITAKER,

Plaintiff, No. 2:13-cv-00501 GEB JFM (PC)

vs.

DALEY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee

in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly

1

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 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

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust

account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘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 Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550

U.S. at 555. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only

‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” 

2

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 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

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell, 550 U.S. at 555, in turn quoting

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the

court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94,

and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. Specifically, the allegations of the complaint are difficult to decipher. It appears plaintiff

is attempting to allege, among other things, that his constitutional rights were violated when he

was convicted of a prison rules violation and sentenced to an eighteen month disciplinary SHU

term. Beyond that, the court is simply unable to determine the nature of plaintiff’s complaint. 

As a result, the court finds that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff leave to file

an amended complaint.

If plaintiff does choose to amend his complaint, he must allege facts

demonstrating how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint

must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved in the alleged constitutional

violation. 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

3

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 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

F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 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. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

Finally, given the nature of plaintiff’s apparent claim, plaintiff is informed of the

following legal principles that may apply to this action. In Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477

(1994), the United States Supreme Court held that a suit for damages on a civil rights claim

concerning an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment cannot be maintained

absent proof “that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or

called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” 

Heck, 512 U.S. at 486. 

Under Heck, the court is required to determine whether a judgment in plaintiff’s

favor in this case would necessarily invalidate his conviction or sentence. Id. If it would, the

complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can show that the conviction or sentence has

been invalidated. In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), the rule announced in Heck was

extended to the deprivation of good-time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings. In

Edwards, the United States Supreme Court held that a claim for declaratory relief and money

damages brought by a state prisoner challenging the validity of the procedures used to deprive

him of good-time credits is not cognizable under § 1983 if the good-time credits had not been

4

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 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

restored. Id. Accordingly, if plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must provide a

complete copy of the prison rules violation report in which he was charged, including the

description of the full punishment imposed as a result of his disciplinary conviction. Failure to

comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of this action.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this

action.

 DATED: April 30, 2013.

whit0501.14new

5

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. 2:#cvvs.

 NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's

order filed :

______________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

6

Case 2:13-cv-00501-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 05/01/13 Page 6 of 6