Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00800/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00800-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Fred Leon Jackson, Jr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-0800 LKK PAN P

vs. Order

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting

this civil rights action in forma pauperis. May 20, 2005, the

court found plaintiff stated a claim and directed him to submit

papers for service of process. July 11, 2005, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. 

The complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against

defendants Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto, Piazza, Schwartz

and Powell pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b).

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 1 of 8
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

2

The complaint does not state a claim against Cry, Variz,

Gomez or the Doe defendants. Plaintiff’s claims against these

defendants are dismissed.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Moreno,

Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto, Piazza, Schwartz and Powell and

pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay

serving any defendant and attempt to state a cognizable claim

against defendants Cry, Variz, Gomez and the Doe defendants.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to

state a cognizable claim against defendants Cry, Variz, Gomez and

the Doe defendants, he has 45 days so to do. He is not obligated

to amend his complaint and if he does it unavoidably will delay

this litigation.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants

Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto, Piazza, Schwartz and

Powell, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief,

then within 15 days he must return materials for service of

process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe

plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims

against defendants Cry, Variz, Gomez and the Doe defendants

without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has

jurisdiction, the action is brought in the right place and

plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are

true. It must contain a request for particular relief. 

Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 2 of 8
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

3

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving

plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 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). If

plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must

identify the participants and allege their agreement to deprive

him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth

in numbered paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may

join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim

based upon separate transactions or occurrences, the claims must

be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v.

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002)

(noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed

by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth

rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain

terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v.

Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus

litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 3 of 8
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

4

Plaintiff must eliminate from plaintiff’s pleading all

preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations,

stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for

violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton,

523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in

prisoner cases). It is sufficient, for example, for a prisoner

who claims the conditions of his imprisonment violate the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to

allege that an identified state actor used force against

plaintiff maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

(On the other hand, prison officers imposing discipline act in

haste, under pressure and without the luxury of a second chance;

therefore, no Eighth Amendment violation occurs where force is

applied to maintain or restore discipline but not maliciously and

sadistically.) 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and

understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, supra. 

A long, rambling pleading including many defendants with

unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims

against many defendants, very likely will result in delaying the

review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 4 of 8
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

5

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation

of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an

omission or technical defect, the court will not dismiss it

without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an

opportunity to cure it. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir.

1986). Plaintiff’s pleading will be construed “liberally” to

determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if

plaintiff violates the federal rules, once explained, or the

court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an

amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing a second-amended

complaint he certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has

evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of

this rule the court may impose sanctions sufficient to deter

repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Prison

rules require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and

plaintiff may be punished by prison authorities for violation of

the court’s rules and orders. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3005.

Title 42 of the United States Code § 1997e(a) provides that

a prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such

administrative remedies as are available to him. The requirement

is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 5 of 8
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

6

California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any departmental

decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate

as having an adverse effect upon their welfare.” 15 California

Administrative Code § 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must be

presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner

“describe the problem” and “action requested.” Therefore, this

court ordinarily will review only claims against prison officials

within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an

interview or claims that were or should have been uncovered in

the review promised by the department. Plaintiff further is

admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his

claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he

exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this

rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including

his claims against defendants Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick,

Nakamoto, Piazza, Schwartz and Powell. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants Cry, Variz, Gomez and the Doe

defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 45 days of

service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to

attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. 

Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint and if he does it

inevitably will delay this litigation.

2. The pleading states cognizable claims against defendants

Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto, Piazza, Schwartz and

Powell. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed July 11,

2005, a copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction filed May

16, 2005, 8 USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process

on defendants Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto, Piazza,

Schwartz and Powell. Within 15 days of service of this order

plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of

Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285

forms, and nine copies of the July 11, 2005, first-amended

complaint. Since plaintiff already submitted eight copies of the

May 16, 2005, motion for a preliminary injunction, he shall

submit one additional copy. The court will transmit them to the

United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4. Defendants Moreno, Veal, Khoury, Bick, Nakamoto,

Piazza, Schwartz and Powell will be required to respond to

plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe

plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order

dismissing his defective claims against defendants Cry, Variz,

Gomez and the Doe defendants without prejudice.

Dated: November 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Fred Leon Jackson, Jr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 05-0800 LKK PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 8 completed forms USM-285 

 9 copies of the July 11, 2005 amended complaint

 1 copy of the May 16, 2005, motion 

 

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-00800-LKK -EFB Document 20 Filed 11/30/05 Page 8 of 8