Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00252-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Perez Hernandez
Plaintiff
J. Lebeck
Defendant
Anthony Malfi
Defendant
Jeanne Woodford
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PEREZ HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 07-0252 GEB EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD,

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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 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).

Plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial

partial payment of $1.20 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.

See 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-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 7
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 and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony

Malfi. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendant Jeanne Woodford.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi and

pursue his claims against only those defendants, or he may delay serving any defendant and

attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendant Jeanne Woodford.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendant Jeanne Woodford, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his

complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi,

against whom he has stated a cognizable claim, he must within 20 days return materials for

service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as

consent to dismissal of all claims against defendant Jeanne Woodford without prejudice.

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

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

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 7
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

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 his pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (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). To state a claim against a supervisor who

did not personally inflict the injury alleged, plaintiff must allege the supervisor (1) caused others

to act, or knowingly refused to stop them from acting, knowing or having reasonable cause to

know they would inflict injury; (2) approved such conduct and injury after the fact; or (3) so

failed to train or control subordinates to avoid such injury as to demonstrate reckless or callous

indifference to constitutional injury. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th

Cir. 1991) (en banc); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Hansen v. Black, 885

F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978); see also,

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 937 & fn. 4 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff alleges that defendant

Woodford failed to properly supervise her subordinates and that she should have been aware that

defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi presented a risk of harm to prisoners at California State

Prison, Sacramento. This is insufficient to state a claim.

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 7
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

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

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 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. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

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.

By signing a second amended complaint plaintif 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. 

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

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs., tit.15, § 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must be

presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 7
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

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 entire action, including his claims against defendants J.

Lebeck and Anthony Malfi. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action and make an initial

payment of $1.20 All payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Jeanne Woodford are dismissed with leave to amend. 

Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state

cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of

the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading and all attachments

thereto filed February 8, 2007, two USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on

defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may

return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the

completed USM-285 forms, and three copies of the endorsed complaint. The court will transmit

them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

////

////

////

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Defendants J. Lebeck and Anthony Malfi will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations

within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe

plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims

against defendant Jeanne Woodford without prejudice.

Dated: March 12, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY PEREZ HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0252 GEB EFB P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the February 8, 2007 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00252-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 03/13/07 Page 7 of 7