Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01211/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01211-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHILLIP CARY PAPPAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV-10-1211 LKK KJM P

vs.

BLACKWELL, et al., ORDER

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, all defendants who had been served removed this case

from Santa Clara County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

California. The Northern District transferred the case to this court on May 17, 2010.

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). 

/////

1

Case 2:10-cv-01211-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 07/06/10 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

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.

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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v.

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than

those drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, to survive

dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se complaint must contain more than “naked

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

action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words,

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

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). 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, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Attachments to a complaint are considered to be part of the complaint

for purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1990).

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must

give fair notice and state the elements of a claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community

Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some

2

Case 2:10-cv-01211-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 07/06/10 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

degree of particularity overt acts in which defendants engaged that, if proven, would support

liability for plaintiff’s claim. Id.

The court finds that, for limited purposes of screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the complaint states a claim against defendants Blackwell, Zuniga, Valadez, Clayton, Torres and

Soria. Plaintiff has not met the screening requirements of § 1915A with respect to defendants

Eck, Griggs, Holyfield, Jones, Keeley, Kiehlmeier, Lopez, Ruiz, Stubbs, Tews, Vieria, Yehuda

and Zander. 

As to this latter group of defendants, plaintiff’s allegations, though lengthy and at

times very detailed, do not describe any acts that, if proved, would subject those defendants to

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There can be no liability under § 1983 unless there is some

affirmative link or connection between an individual 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). Although plaintiff alleges that each

of these defendants either was present at the time of an alleged deprivation or knew about it in

some way, he does not describe any affirmative steps those defendants took to deprive him of a

constitutional right. The court will recommend, therefore, that defendants Eck, Griggs,

Holyfield, Jones, Keeley, Kiehlmeier, Lopez, Ruiz, Stubbs, Tews, Vieria, Yehuda and Zander be

dismissed from this action. 

According to defendants’ notice of removal, defendants Blackwell, Zuniga,

Torres and Soria were properly served in state court. It appears, however, that at the time of

removal defendants Valadez and Clayton had not been served, nor is there any indication on the

court’s record that they have been served since removal. Therefore the court will order plaintiff

to complete the attached service documents to effectuate service on defendants Valadez and

Clayton. Defendants Blackwell, Zuniga, Torres and Soria will have thirty days after the entry of

this order in which to respond to the complaint. 

/////

3

Case 2:10-cv-01211-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 07/06/10 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Valadez and Clayton. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed on December 2, 2009.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed December 2, 2009. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

5. Defendants Blackwell, Zuniga, Torres and Soria have thirty days after the

entry of this order in which to respond to the complaint.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Eck, Griggs, Holyfield,

Jones, Keeley, Kiehlmeier, Lopez, Ruiz, Stubbs, Tews, Vieria, Yehuda and Zander be dismissed

from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within twenty-one days after service of the objections. The parties are

4

Case 2:10-cv-01211-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 07/06/10 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

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). 

DATED: July 2, 2010. 

4

papp1211.1.new

5

Case 2:10-cv-01211-LKK -EFB Document 12 Filed 07/06/10 Page 5 of 5