Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01405/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01405-1/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

G. MATTESON, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB (PC) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought against 

multiple defendants employed by California State Prison, Solano (CSP-Solano). ECF No. 1. In 

addition to filing a complaint, he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF Nos. 6 & 7. The court will grant the in forma pauperis application and 

screen the complaint. 

Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 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 

27 

28 

2 

Screening Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include 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 Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

//// 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 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 

27 

28 

3 

Screening Order 

In the instant action, plaintiff, who indicates that he has filed seven prior lawsuits as an 

inmate, names 20 defendants who worked in various capacities at CSP-Solano over a three-year 

period. ECF No. 1 at 2-6. His allegations consist of brief statements detailing multiple events at 

CSP-Solano between March 2021 and May 2023. Id. at 7-20. Plaintiff claims that multiple 

defendants retaliated against him (Claims 1-2) while others “damaged or disposed of” his 

personal property (Claim 3). Id. at 7, 12 & 14. He asserts that he did not receive due process in a 

2021 disciplinary hearing (Claim 4). Id. at 17. Lastly, he asserts that some defendants 

“perpetrated a fraudulent hearing” in 2022 that resulted in a threat to his safety (Claim 5). Id. at 

19. 

Plaintiff’s complaint cannot survive screening. First, his allegations largely consist of 

“naked assertions” or “labels and conclusions,” rather than specific factual allegations that 

constitute the elements of a cause of action under § 1983. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. As 

set forth above, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To state a claim under § 1983, a 

plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). An individual 

defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal 

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant’s 

wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 

646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). Thus, any claims 

brought in an amended complaint must be alleged in specific, non-conclusory terms. 

Second, it is well settled that a claimant may not proceed with various unrelated claims 

against separate defendants: 

“The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as 

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the 

party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple claims against a 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 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 

27 

28 

4 

single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Here, the complaint sets forth three years’ 

worth of allegations that seemingly encompass discrete events and numerous defendants, 

rendering them ill-suited to proceed in a single suit. 

Moreover, insofar as plaintiff alleges due process violations arising from the processing of 

his inmate grievances, he fails to state a claim because there is no protected liberty interest or 

independent constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system. Id.; see 

also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[I]nmates lack a separate 

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”). 

Similarly, insofar as plaintiff alleges due process violations based on damage or loss to 

property, “[i]t is well established that negligent conduct is ordinarily not enough to state a claim 

alleging a denial of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Doe v. Beard, 2014 

WL 3507196, *6 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2014), citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986); 

Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986) (“[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment is not implicated by the lack of due care of an official causing unintended injury to 

life, liberty or property. In other words, where a government official is merely negligent in 

causing the injury, no procedure for compensation is constitutionally required.”). 

Based on the foregoing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff will be 

given the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified herein. 

Leave to Amend 

 Plaintiff may choose to amend his complaint. He is cautioned that any amended 

complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a substantial 

way in depriving him of his constitutional rights. 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). Plaintiff may also include any allegations based on state law that are so 

closely related to his federal allegations that “they form the same case or controversy.” See 28 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 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 

27 

28 

5 

U.S.C. § 1367(a). 

 The amended complaint must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. See 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Nor may he bring unrelated claims against 

multiple defendants. Id. 

 Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

 Any amended complaint should be as concise as possible in fulfilling the above 

requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff should avoid the inclusion of procedural or factual 

background which has no bearing on his legal claims. He should also take pains to ensure that his 

amended complaint is as legible as possible. This refers not only to penmanship, but also spacing 

and organization. Plaintiff should carefully consider whether each of the defendants he names 

actually had involvement in the constitutional violations he alleges. A “scattershot” approach in 

which plaintiff names dozens of defendants will not be looked upon favorably by the court. 

Conclusion 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED; 

 2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed 

concurrently herewith; 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days 

of service of this order; and 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 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 

27 

28 

6 

 4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this action. 

Dated: May 23, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-01405-WBS-EFB Document 8 Filed 05/24/24 Page 6 of 6