Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01955/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01955-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
L. Davies
Defendant
A. Espinoza
Defendant
J. Hall
Defendant
Mike Morgan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v. 

A. ESPINOZA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-CV-1955-DAD-DMC-P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, a prisoner pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 

 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 

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

§ 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was 

initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. 

Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 

portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that 

complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, 

Case 2:23-cv-01955-DAD-DMC Document 11 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 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 

2

concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice 

of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 

1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail 

to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening 

required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. 

I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

 Plaintiff Mike Morgan names as defendants: (1) A. Espinoza, Correctional Officer, 

(2) L. Davies, Lieutenant, and (3) J. Hall, Sergeant. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. All defendants are 

prison officials at California State Prison – Solano (CSP-Solano). See id. at 2. 

 In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants falsified documents to the extent 

that Plaintiff could not properly defend against a Rules Violation Report (RVR-115). See id. at 3. 

According to Plaintiff, on August 21, 2021, Plaintiff received an RVR-115 for a cellular device. 

See id. Plaintiff asserts that throughout the RVR-115 process and following inmate grievance 

process, Defendants falsified documents and made the process arbitrary and capricious. See id. 

Plaintiff asserts that the evidence presented supports all claims and allegations against 

Defendants. See id. at 3.

 In his second claim, Plaintiff asserts that he was not afforded the right to properly 

defend himself against wrongdoing. See id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant L. Davies 

denied Plaintiff the opportunity to call a witness for his defense in the administrative RVR-115 

hearing. See id. According to Plaintiff, this denial resulted in a violation of Plaintiff’s right to due 

process. See id. at 4.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:23-cv-01955-DAD-DMC Document 11 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 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 

3

II. DISCUSSION

 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable due process violation

with respect to disciplinary hearings against Defendant L. Davies (second claim). Plaintiff has 

not, however, alleged sufficient facts to link any constitutional violation to Defendants Espinoza 

and Hall. 

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

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Here, Plaintiff names as defendants A. Espinoza, L. Davies, and J. Hall. Plaintiff 

generally alleges that his due process rights were violated by falsification of documents. Plaintiff 

has not, however, alleged facts linking either Defendant Espinoza or Defendant Hall to the 

falsification of documents or the prison disciplinary process. Plaintiff will be provided an 

opportunity to amend. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 

amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the 

Case 2:23-cv-01955-DAD-DMC Document 11 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 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 

4

prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the 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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between 

each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 

(9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 

complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and 

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 

further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended 

complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 

Dated: January 18, 2024 

____________________________________ 

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01955-DAD-DMC Document 11 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 4