Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02721/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02721-1/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Tony Marquet Campbell,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2721 DFL PAN P

vs. Order

R. Brown, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a

civil rights action. 

April 8, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s initial

pleading with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended

complaint June 30, 2005.

The amended complaint does not state a cognizable claim

against any defendant, and it is dismissed with leave to amend.

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has

jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in the right 

Case 2:04-cv-02721-DFL-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 5
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

place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and 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).

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.

Case 2:04-cv-02721-DFL-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 5
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

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 plaintiff’s 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 (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).

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally”

to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a

plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th

Cir. 1986).

It is sufficient, for example, for a prisoner who claims the

conditions of his imprisonment violate the Eighth Amendment

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to allege facts

that would, if proven, establish an identified state actor used

force against plaintiff maliciously and sadistically for the very

purpose of causing harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,

834 (1994). (On the other hand, prison officers imposing

discipline act in haste, under pressure and without the luxury of

a second chance; therefore, no Eighth Amendment violation occurs

Case 2:04-cv-02721-DFL-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 5
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

where force is applied to maintain or restore discipline but not

maliciously and sadistically.)

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and

understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, supra. 

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. 

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.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint

he 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. Prison rules require

plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s

rules and orders. See 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3005.

Title 42 of the United States Code § 1997e(a) provides a

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

administrative remedies as are available to him. The requirement

Case 2:04-cv-02721-DFL-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/28/05 Page 4 of 5
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

is mandatory. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). 

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

action.

Accordingly, the June 30, 2005, amended complaint is

dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Failure to file an

amended complaint will result in a recommendation this action be

dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files an

amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will

proceed with service of process by the United States Marshal. 

So ordered.

Dated: December 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02721-DFL-EFB Document 8 Filed 12/28/05 Page 5 of 5