Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00394/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00394-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID EARL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK LaCOURSIER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:24-cv-0394 DJC DB P

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 

§1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint for screening. For the reasons set 

forth below, this court finds plaintiff states no cognizable claims for relief and grants plaintiff

leave to file a second amended complaint. 

SCREENING

I. Legal Standards for §1983 Claims

As described in this court’s prior screening order, the court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners to determine whether they sufficiently state claims under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The prisoner must plead an arguable legal and factual 

basis for each claim in order to survive dismissal. Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 

(9th Cir. 1984). In addition, the prisoner must demonstrate a link between the actions of each 

defendant and the deprivation of his rights. Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

(1978). “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).

II. First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff is an inmate at the California Health Care Facility. In his original complaint, 

plaintiff sought relief against nine defendants. His allegations centered around some defendants’ 

referral of potential narcotics crimes for prosecution in state court. This court found plaintiff 

stated no claims for relief. (ECF No. 6.) 

In his first amended complaint, plaintiff limits his list of defendants. Plaintiff now seeks 

relief against four defendants: (1) Mark LaCoursier, California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”)-

Investigative Services Unit (“ISU”) Correctional Officer; (2) Samer Hammoudeh, CHCF-ISU 

Correctional Sgt. (3) Brian Pinneo, CHCF-ISU Correctional Lt.; and (4) Sheila DeJesus, CCII 

CHCF-Appeals Coordinator. (ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff’s allegations are largely the same as those in his original complaint. Plaintiff’s 

primary contention is that defendants LaCoursier, Hammoudeh, and Pinneo engaged in a 

conspiracy “in pure retaliation and reprisals” to have plaintiff wrongfully convicted in superior 

court of drug crimes. Plaintiff states these defendants took those actions to prejudice his parole 

board hearing. Later in his complaint, plaintiff contends defendants took those actions in 

retaliation for plaintiff submitting a staff misconduct complaint against them. (ECF No. 9 at 10.) 

Much of plaintiff’s complaint is an attempt to dispute the evidence that he was involved in 

narcotics crimes. (Id. at 4-8.) 

Plaintiff further alleges defendants should have charged him with a rules violation rather 

than referring the case to the superior court. By failing to charge him, plaintiff claims defendants 

denied him the right to defend himself. (ECF No. 9 at 9.) 

Plaintiff claims he has suffered a denial of parole, “stigma-plus-attachments as a prison 

narcotics dealer and trafficker,” slander, emotional distress, and depression. (ECF No. 9 at 9.) 

////

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Hammoudeh and Pinneo violated his right of access 

to the courts. According to plaintiff, those defendants refused to provide him with a transcript or 

recording of a phone call he had with the attorney who represented him at the trial for his 

underlying conviction. It appears that plaintiff is alleging his attorney said that “plaintiff was one 

of his victims.” Plaintiff intended to use that transcript to support a claim of ineffective assistance 

of counsel at the trial. (ECF No. 9 at 10.) 

Finally, plaintiff again alleges defendant DeJesus failed to process plaintiff’s staff 

misconduct complaint against the other three defendants. Plaintiff submitted the complaint 

regarding the defendants’ “chain and civil conspiracy” to have plaintiff prosecuted in superior 

court for narcotics crimes. (ECF No. 9 at 10.) 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff again states no claims for relief cognizable under section 1983. The problems with 

plaintiff’s first amended complaint are almost identical to the problems in his original complaint 

that this court pointed out in the prior screening order. This court will briefly re-state the legal 

standards for each claim plaintiff is attempting to allege and give plaintiff another opportunity to 

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff must carefully review the legal standards to determine 

whether he can allege facts that, if proved, would show each defendant violated his constitutional 

rights. 

A. Retaliation

To state a claim that he has been subjected to retaliation in violation of his constitutional 

rights, plaintiff must allege facts showing the following: (1) a state actor took an adverse action 

against him (2) because of (3) his exercise of protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled 

his exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal. Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (footnote 

omitted). Plaintiff has the burden of showing that retaliation for the exercise of a protected right 

was the but-for factor behind the defendant’s conduct. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 258-60

(2006).

////

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

Plaintiff claims defendants LaCoursier, Hammoudeh, and Pinneo were motivated by 

retaliation when they referred his case for prosecution in state court. However, plaintiff does not 

allege facts which would establish the elements of a retaliation claim. First, plaintiff fails to show 

he engaged in protected conduct. At one point in his complaint, plaintiff states that he was 

retaliated against for filing the staff misconduct complaint. However, plaintiff alleges the staff 

misconduct complaint was about the referral of plaintiff’s case to state court. Therefore, it was 

filed after defendants took the allegedly retaliatory actions and it cannot form the basis for 

plaintiff’s retaliation claim. 

Plaintiff also fails to show any connection between something he did and defendants’ 

referral of his case to state court. While this court finds it unlikely plaintiff will be able to state a 

retaliation claim based on the referral of the narcotics case to state court, plaintiff will be given an 

opportunity to attempt to do so again. 

These same problems apply to plaintiff’s argument that LaCoursier, Hammoudeh, and 

Pinneo’s failure to charge him with a rules violation was retaliatory. Moreover, while plaintiff 

also contends that failure prevented him from defending himself, he does not explain why that is 

so. Plaintiff does not allege he was denied due process in the superior court proceedings and he 

was not convicted on the narcotics charges. 

B. Falsification of Evidence

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege claims that defendants falsified evidence that 

resulted in the criminal charges and/or the denial of parole, he has not done so. As explained in 

the prior screening order, the only basis for those claims would be that plaintiff was denied due 

process in the criminal and parole proceedings. However, any claim regarding his criminal case 

is moot because the charges against plaintiff were dismissed. And, as plaintiff was informed 

previously, the only claim he may raise here with respect to the denial of parole would be that he 

was denied an opportunity to be heard. Plaintiff does not make that allegation. Again, while this 

court finds it unlikely plaintiff can state a claim regarding the denial of parole, he will be given 

one more opportunity to do so. 

////

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

C. Failure to Process Staff Misconduct Complaint

As plaintiff was informed previously, he has no constitutional right to have an inmate 

grievance processed in a certain way or have staff punished for misconduct. Plaintiff adds 

nothing to his claim against DeJesus besides what he alleged previously. It does not appear 

plaintiff can allege any sort of claim against DeJesus based on these facts. 

D. Failure to Provide Plaintiff with Evidence

Plaintiff contends that defendants Hammoudeh and Pinneo violated his right of access to 

the courts by refusing to provide him with recordings of his conversations with his attorney. 

Again, plaintiff fails to allege anything different from what he alleged previously. As plaintiff 

was informed in the prior screening order, to state a claim for denial of the First Amendment right 

of access to the courts, plaintiff must allege facts showing that he suffered an “actual injury” as a 

result of the defendant’s alleged actions, by explaining how the challenged official acts or 

omissions hindered plaintiff’s efforts to pursue a nonfrivolous legal claim. Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 351-55 (1996). Plaintiff does not show how the denial of the recordings affected any 

state or federal proceedings challenging his attorney’s conduct at trial. 

CONCLUSION

Above, this court finds plaintiff fails to state any claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given 

an opportunity to file another amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that this court finds it 

unlikely he will be able to state claims under section 1983 based on the facts he has alleged so far. 

Plaintiff should carefully review the legal standards set out above and in the prior screening order 

and only allege facts that would, if proved, support a claim that defendants violated his 

constitutional rights under section 1983. If plaintiff fails to state claims for relief in his second 

amended complaint, this court will recommend this action be dismissed. 

In an amended complaint, plaintiff must address the problems with his complaint that are 

explained above. Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each 

defendant and the action that defendant took that violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The 

court is not required to review exhibits or other filings to determine what plaintiff’s charging

////

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

allegations are as to each named defendant. Plaintiff must include ALL claims he wishes to 

pursue in one amended complaint. 

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). “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) (citations omitted). 

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).

Plaintiff may not bring claims against different defendants that are not related to each 

other. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). “[M]ultiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A 

against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated 

claims against different defendants belong in different suits.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)). Simply alleging a “conspiracy” does not transform 

unrelated claims into related claims. 

The federal rules require a simple description of a party’s claims. 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. 

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has 

evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 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

7

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is dismissed with leave to amend. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to file 

an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed. 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district.

Dated: July 2, 2024

DLB:9

DB prisoner inbox/civil rights/S/will0394.FAC scrn LTA

Case 2:24-cv-00394-DJC-SCR Document 10 Filed 07/03/24 Page 7 of 7