Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03107/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03107-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JIMMIE E. STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03107-LB 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF No. 17 ]

INTRODUCTION

Jimmie Stephen, currently an inmate at the California Medical Facility-Vacaville, filed this

pro se prisoner's civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to complain about conditions at San 

Quentin State Prison, where he formerly was housed. He consented to proceed before a magistrate 

judge. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)1This action is now before the court for review of the second amended 

complaint. This order finds the second amended complaint to be deficient, and requires Mr. 

Stephen to file a third amended complaint. 

STATEMENT

On February 9, 2016, the court reviewed Mr. Stephen‟s amended complaint and issued an 

order of dismissal with leave to amend. (ECF No. 16.) That order noted that the amended 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

complaint was very garbled but appeared to be trying to allege a claim against lieutenant Williams 

and others for retaliating against Mr. Stephen, with the retaliation apparently being connected to 

disciplinary matters. The order explained the problems in the amended complaint, and gave 

specific directions as to what Mr. Stephen needed to do to cure those deficiencies in the second 

amended complaint he was directed to file. (Id. at 3-4.) The court set a deadline that would allow 

Mr. Stephen more than a month to prepare his second amended complaint.

Mr. Stephen filed a second amended complaint within just a few days of receiving the order of 

dismissal with leave to amend. His second amended complaint alleges that lieutenant Williams 

“willfully retaliated” against him “for 1st Amendment access of filed grievances against him under 

practice, custom, policy by filing 5 false write-ups thereby promulgating false disciplinary actions 

with risk of harm” on August 26, 2012, October 9, 2013, April 9, 2014, November 6, 2014, and 

December 21, 2014. (ECF No. 17 at 3 (random quotation marks omitted).) These actions allegedly 

caused Mr. Stephen to segregated and then transferred, which in turn prejudiced the parole board‟s 

consideration of whether he was suitable for parole. (Id.)

ANALYSIS

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

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

§ 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se

complaints must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

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). “Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need only 

. . . give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Although a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to 

provide the „grounds‟ of his „entitle[ment] to relief‟ requires more than labels and conclusions, and 

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a right 

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, 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). 

The order of dismissal with leave to amend provided the following instructions about pleading 

a retaliation claim:

[I]f Mr. Stephen wants to allege a retaliation claim, he must be sure 

to adequately plead all the elements. “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) (footnote omitted). Mr. Stephen 

should pay particular attention to identifying the First Amendment 

activities he engaged in by stating what he did and when he did it. 

He also should be sure to identify the adverse action(s) each state 

actor took in response to those First Amendment activities. Further, 

he should allege facts that plausibly suggest that the adverse actions 

were because of the First Amendment activity, and not simply that 

one followed the other. 

(ECF No. 16 at 3.)

The second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because 

Mr. Stephen fails to follow most of the directions quoted above. His conclusory allegation that 

lieutenant Williams took actions because of some unspecified “grievances” does not adequately 

identify the First Amendment activities that allegedly prompted the retaliatory acts because Mr. 

Stephen fails to identify the grievances he had filed and when he filed them. Mr. Stephen also does 

not allege any facts plausibly suggesting that the disciplinary actions were because of Mr. 

Stephen‟s First Amendment activities. The omission of any facts plausibly suggesting causation is 

particularly problematic because that causal connection -- that the adverse action has been taken as 

payback for constitutionally-protected activity -- is the very essence of a retaliation claim. Further, 

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Mr. Stephen does not adequately identify the adverse actions taken by lieutenant Williams. He 

alleges that lieutenant Williams filed five “false” disciplinary charges, but does not explain how 

the disciplinary charges were false. The one disciplinary write-up attached to the second amended 

complaint was not even written by lieutenant Williams; lieutenant Williams served as the hearing 

officer for that write-up. (ECF No. 17 at 5-10.) 

Mr. Stephen will be given one final chance to try to plead a claim for retaliation. The second 

amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If Mr. Stephen wishes to pursue a retaliation 

claim against lieutenant Williams, he must file a third amended complaint that complies with all 

the directions in the block quote on page 3 of this order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the second amended complaint is DISMISSED WITH FURTHER 

LEAVE TO AMEND. Mr. Stephen must file a third amended complaint no later than May 15, 

2016, and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words THIRD 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Mr. Stephen is cautioned that his third amended 

complaint will supersede existing pleadings and must be a complete statement of his claims, 

except that he does not need to plead again any claim the court has dismissed without leave to 

amend. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Failure to file 

the third amended complaint by the deadline will result in the dismissal of the action for failure to 

state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE E. STEPHEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HAL WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-03107-LB 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 19, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jimmie E. Stephen ID: C56483

Vacaville State Prison CMF D-121-Up

PO Box 2500

Vacaville, CA 95696 

Dated: April 19, 2016 Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable LAUREL BEELER

Case 3:15-cv-03107-LB Document 18 Filed 04/19/16 Page 5 of 5