Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01352-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOWARD MILLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01352-LJO-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED

COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED, FOR FAILURE

TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF

MAY BE GRANTED

(Doc. 12)

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Sullivan and Jabbaar removed this action from the Kern County Superior

Court on September 26, 2006. On May 8, 2007, this court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended

complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed June 11, 2007, is the subject of the screening set

forth below.

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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall 

Case 1:06-cv-01352-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/14/08 Page 1 of 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

2

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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).

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. A court may dismiss a complaint only

if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with

the allegations. Id. at 514. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether

the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of

the pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey,

353 F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.”

Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l

Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at the California Correctional Institution,

Tehachapi, California, where plaintiff was formerly incarcerated. Plaintiff names Warden J. Sullivan

and Muslim Chaplin Iman Kanl Abdul Jabbaar as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking monetary

damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 13, 2004, he sought administrative remedies against

defendant Iman Kanl Abdul Jabbaar. Plaintiff contends that defendant Jabbaar retaliated against him

by generating a false write up against him in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Case 1:06-cv-01352-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/14/08 Page 2 of 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

3

i. Retaliation

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to petition

the government may support a section 1983 claim. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.

1985); see also Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65

F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment

retaliation entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled

the inmate’s 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).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jabbaar generated a “false write up” in retaliation for plaintiff

seeking an administrative remedy. In the write up, defendant Jabbaar indicates that plaintiff had

been attempting to discredit defendant’s authority, and was negatively influencing other inmates’

opinion of defendant in his role as Chaplain. The write up indicates that progressive disciplinary

action would be taken against plaintiff if plaintiff persisted in inappropriate conduct. 

An allegation of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment right to file a prison

grievance is sufficient to support claim under section 1983. Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1288 (9th

Cir. 2003). However, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support a claim that he was

retaliated against for filing a grievance and that defendant’s actions did not advance any legitimate

penological goal. Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim that plaintiff was set up

in retaliation for filing a staff complaint.

ii. Claim Against Defendant Sullivan

Warden Sullivan is named as a defendant. Undersection 1983, liability may not be imposed

on supervisory personnel for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior.

When the named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between the defendant and

the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858,

862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under section 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must

allege some facts indicating that the defendant either: personally participated in the alleged

Case 1:06-cv-01352-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/14/08 Page 3 of 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

4

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or

promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of

constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885

F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts must be alleged to support

claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168

(1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting a claim that defendant Sullivan personally

participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to

act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is

a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’”

Hansen v. Black at 646. Defendant’s position as Warden, alone, is not a basis upon which liability

may be imposed in this action.

C. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth in this Findings and Recommendations, the court finds that

plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claims for relief under section 1983.

Accordingly, the court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed in its entirety,

without leave to amend and with prejudice.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty (20)

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 13, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01352-LJO -DLB Document 13 Filed 03/14/08 Page 4 of 4