Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01293-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
K. Currie
Defendant
D. Devarro
Defendant
L. Edmonds
Defendant
A. Gonzalez
Defendant
C. Love
Defendant
N. Navarro
Defendant
Emilio Reynoso
Defendant
Donald Specter
Defendant
Aaron Wallace
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Aaron Wallace is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of 

the United States magistrate judge on September 10, 2014. Local Rule 302.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on August 18, 2014.

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

AARON WALLACE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD SPECTER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01293-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO STATE 

A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 1 of 6
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

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

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

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Donald Spector (Director of California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation), K. Currie, N. Navarro, D. Devarro, A. Gonzalez, L. Edmonds, C. Love, and Emilio 

Reynoso as Defendants.

Based on the illegibility of Plaintiff’s handwriting and vague nature of the facts presented in 

the complaint, the Court cannot determine the nature of Plaintiff’s claim(s) for relief. The factual 

allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint consist of one paragraph containing incomplete sentences. As far 

as the Court can decipher, Plaintiff appears to raise allegations relating to medical services provided 

and/or not provided to him at Corcoran State Prison. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to raise an Eighth 

Amendment challenge to his medical treatment, the Court will provide the applicable legal standard. 

In addition, Plaintiff appears to reference interference with his ability to file inmate grievances and/or 

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 2 of 6
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

access to the court. The Court will likewise provide Plaintiff the applicable legal standards for such 

claims. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Legibility of Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint is largely illegible. Plaintiff is advised that he must submit “clearly 

legible” pleadings. Local Rule 130(b). Although the complaint may be handwritten, it must be 

legible. Plaintiff is cautioned that if the Court cannot read his complaint, it cannot order service upon 

any defendants. In addition, Plaintiff’s complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that [Plaintiff] is entitled to relief....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Each allegation must 

be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1). Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file 

an amended complaint that is legible. The following sections of this order notify Plaintiff of the 

general legal standards applicable to any future pleading. 

B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

By the PLRA, Congress amended 42 U.S.C. §1997e to provide that “[n]o action shall be 

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by 

a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies 

as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The exhaustion requirement “applies to all 

inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and 

whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 

(2002). 

The PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional but rather creates an affirmative 

defense that defendants must plead and prove. Jones, 747 F.3d at 1166. Thus, inmates are not 

required to specifically plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. Albino holds that, in 

general, the defense should be brought as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, unless in the rare 

event that the prisoner’s failure to exhaust is clear on the face of the complaint. Albino, 747 F.3d 

1168-1169, 1171. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 3 of 6
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

C. Linkage Requirement

Section 1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person 

acting under color of state law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the 

claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United 

States.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628. 632-633 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the 

violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-677 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Liability may not be imposed under 

a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist some causal connection between the conduct of 

each named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California 

Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 

F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011).

D. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Need

While the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to medical 

care, the Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate indifference to 

an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th Cir. 2012), overruled

in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th Cir. 2014); Wilhelm v. 

Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Plaintiff “must show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that 

“the defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing 

Jett, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006)). Deliberate indifference is shown by “(a) a purposeful act 

or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm caused by the 

indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The requisite state of mind 

is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of due care. Snow, 681 F.3d 

at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122. 

///

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 4 of 6
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

E. Access to the Court

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey, 518 

U.S. 343, 346 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 

F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for relief, Plaintiff must show that he 

suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation.” 

Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) 

(internal quotation marks omitted); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002); Lewis, 518 

U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655. 

F. Inmate Appeals Process

“The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of 

life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one 

of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). Plaintiff does not a 

have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he cannot pursue a claim 

for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 

334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Plaintiff is granted the opportunity to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days. 

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties 

and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a 

constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). Although accepted as 

true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level .

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 5 of 6
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

. .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 

114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220. “All 

causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 

1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended civil rights complaint form;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed August 18, 2014, is dismissed for failure to state a claim;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this action 

will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 7 Filed 12/03/14 Page 6 of 6