Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01140/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01140-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW DRISKEL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1140 FCD KJM P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 4, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

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). 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01140-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 04/09/07 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

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 where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is a rambling, unfocused document combining claims of

fraud and bribery in the legislative process with Latin phrases (“ipsissima verba”). It appears

that plaintiff is challenging the provisions of the Penal Code which allow inmates assigned to

conservation camps to earn additional credits against their sentences. However, plaintiff also

discusses a provision of the California Business and Professions Code regarding business

licenses for barbers and cosmetologists. Accordingly, the court cannot evaluate the merits of

plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff brings this action not only under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but also under 18

U.S.C. § 242, the criminal statute which makes it a crime to deprive a person of his civil rights. 

This statute has no application in a civil suit. Garrison v. Newell, 55 F.R.D. 550, 552 (W.D. Va.

Case 2:06-cv-01140-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 04/09/07 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

1972). Any claims based on this statute have no place in an amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that the difference in credit earning capacity violate his rights to

due process and equal protection; he includes claims that his Fourth Amendment right to bodily

integrity and his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment are also

violated by these statutes. 

Plaintiff does not explain nor can the court surmise how a system of awarding

work credits can violate his Fourth Amendment right to bodily integrity, which is a very limited

right in the prison context. See generally Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir.

1988). Plaintiff should not include any Fourth Amendment claims in an amended complaint.

The basis of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim is similarly vague. To the

extent he challenges the restrictions on his inability to earn credits and the resulting impact on

the length of his sentence, he has not stated a claim under the Eighth Amendment. Lockyer v.

Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003). This claim should not be included in any amended petition.

It appears that plaintiff has made very few changes in the original complaint, none

of which have rendered the complaint any more comprehensible. As a model of concise

pleading, the court directs plaintiff to the standard form negligence complaint from the Appendix

to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

 1. Allegation of jurisdiction.

 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called Boylston Street, in

Boston Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against

plaintiff, who was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was

otherwise injured, was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great

pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and

hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of one thousand

dollars.

See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01140-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 04/09/07 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

The court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short and

plain statement as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Although the Federal

Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which

defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must

be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must

demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's

constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second

amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 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. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976); 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. Board 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 second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

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 a second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

Case 2:06-cv-01140-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 04/09/07 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed.

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

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended

complaint; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

action by a prisoner. 

DATED: April 9, 2007. 

2

dris1140.14amd

Case 2:06-cv-01140-FCD-KJM Document 16 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 5