Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02358/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02358-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERDINAND REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-2358 KJM KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. 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). 

Plaintiff 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 this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing 

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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 to make monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 1 of 7
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

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 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 upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 2 of 7
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

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

The only named defendant appears to be Jennifer Shaffer, identified by plaintiff as the 

“CEO-California Parole Board.” Plaintiff, who is African American, alleges that the State Parole 

Board includes no African American members even though 60% of the inmates who appear 

before the Parole Board are African American. Plaintiff alleges that the Parole Board denies 

parole to inmates based on their race and shows favoritism toward certain white prisoners whose 

crimes are far more serious than those committed by African American prisoners. By way of 

example, plaintiff cites James and Richard Schoenfeld, who are white, who were granted parole 

despite “committing the most barbaric, heinous, despicable and unforgiveable crimes ever 

committed in the history of the California Criminal Justice System!” Plaintiff alleges that James 

and Richard Schoenfeld kidnapped 26 school children riding a school bus, buried them and their 

bus driver underground, and left them to die if they did not receive a $5 million dollar ransom. 

No one died during this incident. The Schoenfelds spent 35 and 38 years, respectively, 

incarcerated in state prison. 

Plaintiff alleges that on May 7, 2015, he (plaintiff) was found unsuitable for parole even 

though he met the criteria for being a low risk prisoner who did not pose a threat to public safety. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was found unsuitable based on his refusal to plead guilty to committing 8 

armed robberies and 1 kidnap/robbery. Plaintiff alleges that he has now served 7 years beyond 

his minimum eligible parole date. 

As relief, plaintiff requests that the California Parole Board become integrated with 50% 

African Americans members from inner cities who do not have law enforcement backgrounds.

The undersigned construes the complaint to raise an equal protection claim. A plaintiff 

raising an equal protection claim in the parole context must demonstrate that he was treated 

differently from other similarly situated prisoners and that the Parole Board lacked a rational 

basis for its decision. McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 269–70 (1973); McQueary v. Blodgett, 

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 3 of 7
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

924 F.2d 829, 835 (9th Cir.1991).

Plaintiff appears to argue that he is similarly situated to James and Richard Schoenfeld, 

who were granted parole. However, plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is actually similarly 

situated to the Schoenfelds. Plaintiff does not allege for how long he has been incarcerated. 

Plaintiff also provides no information regarding the circumstances of the offenses for which he 

was convicted. Plaintiff provides no information from which the undersigned may compare his 

record to that of the Schoenfelds. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that plaintiff has failed 

to state a potentially colorable Equal Protection claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is 

dismissed with leave to amend. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v. 

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each 

named defendant is involved. Id. 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. 

Id.; 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. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

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.

////

////

////

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 4 of 7
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

On December 12, 2015, plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Amended Defendant Jeffery 

Beard Secretary of Dept. of Corrections.” (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff alleges that on March 3, 2015, 

the Parole Board deferred his next suitability hearing for 15 years pursuant to California Penal 

Code § 3041.1, i.e., Marsy’s law. Plaintiff alleges that the application of Marsy’s law to decide 

the date of his next suitability hearing violates an agreement reached between the Parole Board 

and the Uncommon Law Office in 2009 not to apply Marsy’s law to inmates whose convictions 

occurred prior to the enactment of Marsy’s law in 2008, such as plaintiff. Plaintiff requests $1 

million in damages.

Plaintiff is attempting to amend his complaint to include a claim based on the alleged 

improper application of Marsy’s law by the Parole Board. However, plaintiff may not amend his 

complaint by way of a separately filed pleading that does not contain all of his claims. In other 

words, piecemeal presentation of claims is not permitted. “[E]very pleading to which an 

amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order 

shall be ... filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 220. Accordingly, plaintiff’s December 12, 2015 pleading is disregarded. 

The undersigned observes that plaintiff filed another civil rights action in this court which 

raised a similar, if not the same, claim challenging application of Marsy’s Law by the Parole 

Board. See 2: 14-cv-3040 EFB P. On April 28, 2015, Magistrate Judge Brennan dismissed case 

14-3040 on grounds that plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficient to state a claim for money 

damages against defendant Schaffer, the only named defendant in that action. It appears that 

plaintiff may be attempting to, improperly, raise these previously dismissed claims in the instant 

action. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should not include these previously dismissed claims. 

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. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). 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 

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

Dated: January 27, 2016

Rey2358.14

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 6 of 7
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERDINAND REYNOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 15-cv-2358 KJM KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

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

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:15-cv-02358-KJM-KJN Document 13 Filed 01/28/16 Page 7 of 7