Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00195/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00195-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ALBERT NEELY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. W. MOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00195-SAB-PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO 

STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR 

RELIEF

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed January 

22, 2015.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or 

that “seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:15-cv-00195-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 5
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

1915(e)(2)(B).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff‟s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are „merely consistent with‟ a defendant‟s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Golden State Modified Community Correctional Facility in

McFarland, brings this action against correctional officials employed by the CDCR. The events 

at issue occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the Taft Modified Community Correctional 

Facility (TMCCF). Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Acting TMCCF Warden J. Moss; 

Appeals Examiner D. Artis; Chief, Office of Appeals R. Briggs. Plaintiff‟s allegations stem 

from a disciplinary process at TMCCF.

While housed at TMCCF, Plaintiff was charged with a Rules Violation Report CDCR 

Form 115 (RVR), with a failure to follow orders. Plaintiff was found guilty of the RVR at a 

Case 1:15-cv-00195-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 5
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

disciplinary hearing, and was assessed a loss of behavioral credits. The sole claim in this lawsuit 

is that the guilty finding is unsubstantiated. Plaintiff alleges that he was unable to obtain video 

footage that would exonerate him of the guilty finding. Plaintiff seeks to have the RVR 

dismissed and all of his behavioral credits restored.

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Disciplinary Hearing

 It has long been established that state prisoners cannot challenge the fact or duration of 

their confinement in a section 1983 action and their sole remedy lies in habeas corpus relief. 

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Often referred to as the favorable termination rule 

or the Heck bar, this exception to section 1983‟s otherwise broad scope applies whenever state 

prisoners “seek to invalidate the duration of their confinement-either directly through an 

injunction compelling speedier release or indirectly through a judicial determination that 

necessarily implies the unlawfulness of the State‟s custody.” Wilkinson, 544 U.S. at 81; Heck v. 

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482, 486-487 (1994); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997). 

Thus, “a state prisoner‟s [section] 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)-no matter the 

relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner‟s suit (state 

conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)-if success in that action would 

necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Id. at 81-82. Plaintiff 

has not alleged that his disciplinary conviction has been reversed, expunged or otherwise 

invalidated. This claim should therefore be dismissed.

B. Supervisory Liability 

Plaintiff names as a Defendant Acting Warden J. Moss. Government officials may not be

held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government official cannot be held liable under a 

theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, Plaintiff must plead facts indicating that 

Defendant Moss violated the Constitution through his own individual actions. Id. at 673. In 

other words, to state claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that

Case 1:15-cv-00195-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Defendant Moss engaged in some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of 

Plaintiff‟s federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. Defendant Moss should therefore be 

dismissed.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff‟s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may 

be granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. Noll 

v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 

607 (7th Cir. 2007)(no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the 

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), 

and must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” 

Local Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in 

an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers 

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff‟s complaint, filed January 22, 2015, is dismissed for failure to state a 

claim;

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

Case 1:15-cv-00195-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

an amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00195-SAB Document 12 Filed 12/17/15 Page 5 of 5