Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00157-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0157 MCE EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis with a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed February 11, 2008, the court

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, on the basis that the complaint was prolix

and obscure in violation of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On February 25,

2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera,

Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels,

Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater,

Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

////

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker, Kernan, and

Terhune.

Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion was

violated under the authority of defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, and Battey. Plaintiff names

Scott Kernan and Cal Terhune as defendants but fails to state charging allegations against them. 

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

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 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 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him 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). Vague

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants Wong, Felker, Nargaard, and Clark conspired to place

plaintiff in the Secured Housing Unit (“SHU”) for terms beyond his Minimum Eligibility Parole

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

Date (“MEPD”) and in excess of the term for which he was sentenced on disciplinary charges. 

In the context of conspiracy claims brought pursuant to § 1983, such a complaint must “allege

facts to support the allegation that defendants conspired together. A mere allegation of

conspiracy without factual specificity is insufficient.” Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988)(citing Jaco v. Bloechle, 739 F.2d 239, 245 (6th Cir.

1984)); Burnett v. Short, 441 F.2d 405, 406 (5th Cir. 1971). 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). Because plaintiff

has failed to allege facts demonstrating a conspiracy among the defendants to house him in the

SHU beyond his parole date, he has failed to state a conspiracy claim against these defendants.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint to state conspiracy allegations against

defendants Wong, Felker, Nargaard, and Clark, and allegations generally against defendants

Kernan and Terhune, plaintiff must demonstrate 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). Also, 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). 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).

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera,

Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels,

Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater,

Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick and pursue his claims against only those defendants or

he may delay serving any defendant and attempt [again] to state a cognizable claim against

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker, Kernan, and Terhune.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker, Kernan, and Terhune, he has 30 days

so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca,

Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli,

Runnels, Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest,

Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick, against whom he has stated a

cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 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 Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker,

Kernan, and Terhune 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 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).

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

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. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from his 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, 1177-78 (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). 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. 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 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. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). 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.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

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.

By signing a second amended complaint plaintiff 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. 

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

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A 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.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 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 is

further 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

Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship,

Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock,

Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants Colon, Naargard, Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker, Kernan, and

Terhune are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 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.

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire, Davis, Felker,

Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford, Wagner, Jackson, Grannis, Melching,

Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank

summons, a copy of the pleading filed February 25, 2008, 30 USM-285 forms and instructions

for service of process on defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush,

McGuire, Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford, Wagner,

Jackson, Grannis, Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone,

Cobb, Spidle, and Minnick. Within 20 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 31 copies of the endorsed February 25, 2008, first amended complaint. 

The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Rivas, Abney, Mendonca, Aguilera, Glenn, Jones, Rush, McGuire,

Davis, Felker, Blankenship, Waybright, Luccarelli, Runnels, Bigford,Wagner, Jackson, Grannis,

Melching, Ehle, Maddock, Avila, DeForest, Shelton, Prater, Goni, Stone, Cobb, Spidle, and

Minnick 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 Colon, Naargard,

Clark, Battey, Wong, Felker, Kernan, and Terhune without prejudice.

Dated: May 5, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 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

8

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE A. GIPBSIN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0157 MCE EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 First Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00157-MCE-EFB Document 29 Filed 05/05/08 Page 8 of 8