Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00197/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00197-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Charles Albert Neely is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 22, 2015, in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California. The action was transferred to this Court on February 3, 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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

CHARLES ALBERT NEELY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R.L. BRIGGS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00197-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

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)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and 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 Serv., 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 names Chief Appeal R.L. Briggs, Appeals Examiner, D. Artis, and Warden J.W. Moss 

as Defendants.

Plaintiff‟s inmate appeal was processed as an appeal inquiry only, when it should have been 

processed as a staff complaint. Contrary to what was reported, staff “did” violate the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) policy and Plaintiff can prove it. Plaintiff 

requested repeatedly in the inmate appeal that Ricardo Ramirez be questioned as a witness, to no avail. 

Ricardo Ramirez can verify what he heard because he was in the office next door when the “incident” 

occurred. The video footage confirms his presence and he can provide testimony that officer Ruffin 

was inappropriately vulgar and therefore violated CDCR policy. 

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Inmate Appeals 

“The Fourteenth Amendment‟s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 

of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a 

have protected liberty interest in the processing of his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim 

for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Thus, Defendants‟ actions in responding to Plaintiff‟s appeals, alone, cannot give rise to any 

claims for relief under section 1983 for violation of due process. As a consequence, because Plaintiff 

has neither a liberty interest, nor a substantive right in inmate appeals, Plaintiff fails to state a 

cognizable claim for the processing and/or reviewing of his 602 inmate appeals. 

B. Verbal Threats

Verbal harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to state a claim under section 1983, 

Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and threats do not rise to the level of a 

constitutional violation, Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Indeed, in Gaut, the Ninth 

Circuit expressly held that “it trivializes the [E]ighth [A]mendment to believe a threat constitutes a 

constitutional wrong.” Id.

Plaintiff‟s claim that a certain officer was inappropriately vulgar to him, fails to state a 

cognizable constitutional violation. Accordingly, Plaintiff‟s complaint with be dismissed, with leave 

to amend. 

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 

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

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 

named 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 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 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 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: April 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00197-LJO-SAB Document 11 Filed 04/24/15 Page 4 of 4