Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02029/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02029-3/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

MANUEL GUADALUPE SANCHEZ, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-2029 CKD P

vs.

T. VIRGA, 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), and plaintiff has consented to all proceedings in this matter being held before a

United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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 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 payments of twenty percent of the

1

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 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

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 has conducted the required screening.

There are two main problems with plaintiff’s operative amended complaint filed

August 17, 2010. First, it is too long; 83 pages handwritten in small print. This violates the

requirement in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that pleadings, generally speaking,

be “short and plain.” Second, some of plaintiff’s claims are not actionable. The court must

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that fail to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

In light of the forgoing, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff

will be granted leave to file a second amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he must

adhere to the following requirements:

1. The second amended complaint shall not exceed 30 pages. 

2. Plaintiff need not include sections I, II or IV from his amended complaint.

3. Plaintiff need only provide enough information about each defendant as is

necessary to understand plaintiff’s claims and plaintiff should not be repetitive with respect to

information about defendants. Generally speaking, plaintiff should omit section III in his

amended complaint.

4. Plaintiff shall not include any allegations regarding “John Doe” defendants or

any references to “John Doe” defendants.

5. Plaintiff, in general, must avoid being repetitive and providing information not

relevant to any of his claims. Most of the information provided in plaintiff’s amended complaint

is not relevant to any actionable claim.

2

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 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

6. Plantiff must avoid making conclusory allegations, that is, allegations which

are not supported by facts. 

7. Plaintiff should not have a separate section for facts. Any fact supporting any

legal claim should be asserted one time under a heading for the claim.

8. Plaintiff alleges he has been placed in segregated housing indefinitely based

upon a finding that he is an associate of a prison gang. The Due Process Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment mandates that plaintiff receive certain process before being given such a

housing assignment; plaintiff has to receive notice of the factual basis for consideration of

placement in segregated housing, a fair opportunity for rebuttal, and a short statement of reasons

for placement in segregated housing. See Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223-26 (2005). 

See Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 561 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (transfer of prisoner to

segregated housing requires only non-adversarial protections in order to comply with the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and those protections do not include that the

decision to transfer be supported by “some evidence” as is required with respect to a decision to

revoke good conduct sentence credit). To the extent plaintiff asserts his being assigned

indefinitely to segregated housing violates his right to due process under the Fourteenth

Amendment, his claims must arise from denial of one of the due process protections described

above. In his second amended complaint, plaintiff should refrain from making allegations of fact

not directly related to a denial of these protections.

9. Plaintiff shall not include any claims in his second amended complaint in

which plaintiff alleges that his validation as a gang member violates his First Amendment rights.

10. Plaintiff should not include allegations regarding defendants’ violation of

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) rules or policies except if those

allegations in some way support a claim for denial of a federal right or a claim arising under state

law which has been presented to the California Board of Control. See 16. Generally speaking,

plaintiff does not have a federal right to have CDCR employees follow CDCR regulations unless

3

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 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

failure to follow the regulation in question imposes atypical and significant hardship in relation

to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 

11. Plaintiff shall not include any federal claims concerning the adequacy of his

prison’s grievance procedure as plaintiff has no federal right to a grievance procedure. See

Ramirez v. Galazza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9thCir. 2003). 

 12. Plaintiff may include claims arising under the Eighth Amendment concerning

conditions of confinement. But, such claims must, generally speaking, be limited to situations

where plaintiff was exposed to a “substantial risk of serious harm.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1991).

13. Plaintiff may include claims arising under the Eighth Amendment concerning

inadequate medical care. But, such claims must, generally speaking, be limited to situations

where a defendant was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need. Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976). 

14. Plaintiff may not present any claims which, generally speaking, imply the

invalidity of the length of his sentence. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997). 

15. Plaintiff’s third, fourth, fifth and seventh “causes of action” fail to state

claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff shall not include the claims identified therein

in his second amended complaint.

16. Plaintiff shall not assert any claims arising under state law unless he has

complied with California’s Tort Claims Act with respect to such claims and specifically alleges

as much in his second amended complaint. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 910; Mangold v. Cal. Pub.

Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 1470, 1477 (9 Cir. 1995). th

17. Plaintiff asserts he has been retaliated against for exercising First Amendment

rights. Prison officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First Amendment

rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a prisoner’s First

Amendment rights are necessarily curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires a

4

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 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

finding that “the prison authorities’ retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the

correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals.” Id. at 532.

The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional

goals for the conduct of which he complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff must also allege that the retaliation resulted in more than minimal harm. Rhodes v.

Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 n. 11 (9thCir. 2005).

18. More generally, in plaintiff’s second amended complaint, 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).

19. Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s second 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. 

/////

/////

/////

5

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 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 accordance with the 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. 

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 amended complaint is dismissed. 

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights

Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended

complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in

dismissal.

Dated: March 16, 2012

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

sanc2029.14

6

Case 2:10-cv-02029-JAM-CKD Document 18 Filed 03/16/12 Page 6 of 6