Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00828/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00828-0/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

PAUL WINFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0828 LKK EFB P

vs.

JOHN SULIVEN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting a civil rights action. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). An initial partial payment of $18.78 is assessed pursuant to section 1915(b)(1).

Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited

to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of plaintiff shall

forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the

account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00828-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds it

does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. To proceed, plaintiff must file an

amended complaint.

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right 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. 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

Case 2:07-cv-00828-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (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). 

The “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative

level on the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in

fact).” Bell Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007)

(citations omitted). Since plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel, the court will construe his

pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell plaintiff of

deficiencies in his complaint and give him an opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203

F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff alleges that defendant John Suliven violated the Eighth Amendment by forcing

plaintiff to take psychotropic medications and that Michael Jaffee violated the Fourteenth

Amendment by forcing him to take psychotropic medications. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must allege an identified defendant

deprived plaintiff of a right secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States while

acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). To state a claim

defendants provided constitutionally inadequate medical care, plaintiff must allege acts or

omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s serious medical

needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837

(1994). Neither defendants’ negligence nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with the treatment

he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v. United States, 838

F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1996).

Prisoners have a federally protected liberty interest in freedom from being forcibly

medicated with psychotropic medications. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 227, 228

(1990). The Fourteenth Amendment permits a state to treat a prisoner found to have a serious

Case 2:07-cv-00828-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against the prisoner’s will if the prisoner is dangerous to

himself or others and the treatment is in the prisoner’s medical interests. Ibid. In order to state a

claim that he has been medicated in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment, a prisoner must allege that once he refused treatment prescribed by a psychiatrist,

he nonetheless was medicated without having notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard

before medical professionals, including the opportunities to have a lay adviser who understands

the psychiatric issues involved, to be present and to cross-examine witnesses. Harper, 494 U.S.

at 233-36. 

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim under either of these theories.

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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.

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

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

Case 2:07-cv-00828-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 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

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 court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350 and shall make an initial payment of

$18.78. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an

original and one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to

this case and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” 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. 

Dated: July 9, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00828-LKK -EFB Document 9 Filed 07/10/07 Page 5 of 5