Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00631/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00631-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brady K. Armstrong
Plaintiff
B. Davi
Defendant
M. Martinez
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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. MARTINEZ, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:12 cv 00631 LJO GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(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. 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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 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 2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, a former inmate, brings this action against Defendant correctional officials 

employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant 

Valley State Prison. The events that give rise to this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was an 

inmate in CDCR custody at Pleasant Valley. Plaintiff names as individual defendants Sergeant 

B. Davi and Correctional Officer M. Martinez.

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a rambling narrative, interspersed with legal argument 

and legal conclusions. It appears that Plaintiff is setting forth claims related to a disciplinary 

process. Plaintiff also refers to expressions of religious exercise and conditions of confinement. 

Plaintiff also refers to a retaliatory motive for the disciplinary charge. Plaintiff also complains 

about confiscation of a typewriter (he refers to the typewriter as an “ADA medical device”). 

Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2009, he was charged with a disciplinary violation. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was charged with urinating into a trash can. Plaintiff 

alleges that he was suffering from “diabetic urgency” at the time. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Martinez falsified the charge because Plaintiff is a Muslim. Plaintiff contends that he 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 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 3

cannot be guilty of the charged offense, as Muslims do not expose their private parts for others to 

view.

Plaintiff also alleges that in March of 2009, he was subjected to unconstitutional 

conditions of confinement when he was moved into a cell that was extremely cold. Plaintiff 

alleges that as a result he suffered “severe painful chills.” 

Plaintiff alleges that on May 7, 2009, Defendant Martinez appeared at Plaintiff’s cell and 

told Plaintiff “not to write him up.” Martinez accused Plaintiff of helping another inmate file a 

lawsuit against his son. Plaintiff responded that he had no knowledge of any lawsuit filed 

against Defendant’s son. Martinez told Plaintiff that “he would so something to cause plaintiff 

some real problems.” 

A. Disciplinary Process

Plaintiff’s central allegation appears to be a fraudulent disciplinary process. 

Plaintiff alleges that he was convicted based upon false charges by Defendant Martinez. In 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United States Supreme Court applied the 

doctrine articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), to prison disciplinary 

hearings. In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages for unconstitutional 

conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment in favor of 

plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, unless the prisoner 

can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. 

In applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court held that a claim challenging the 

procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a claim seeks money damages and 

no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature of the inmate’s allegations are 

such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the result of the prison disciplinary 

hearing. 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if successful, would invalidate the duration 

of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a habeas corpus petition and not under § 

1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 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 4

Although the specific facts of Balisok involved allegations of deceit and bias on the part 

of a hearing officer, the Court’s reasoning applies to any claim which, if proven, would have the 

effect of invalidating the result of a disciplinary hearing. The Ninth Circuit has recently applied 

the Balisok rule to a case in which a prisoner sought damages based on allegations that prison 

officials relied on false information to find him ineligible for parole. Butterfield v. Bail, 120 

F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1997). Because the claim necessarily implied the invalidity of the plaintiff’s 

continued confinement, it could not accrue until the conviction or sentence had been invalidated. 

Id.

In the instant case, plaintiff’s core factual allegations are that he was convicted based 

upon charges that were false. Because plaintiff’s claim necessarily implies the invalidity of 

plaintiff’s continued confinement as a result of his disciplinary hearing, plaintiff’s claim will not 

accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated. 

B. Rule 18

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s complaint appears to contain multiple, unrelated claims. 

“A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party 

claim, may join, either as independent or alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable or 

maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Thus, multiple 

claims against a single party are permissible, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be 

joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass (a multiple claim, 

multiple defendant) suit produces, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any 

prisoner may file without the prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Plaintiff clearly violates Rule 18(a) by including multiple unrelated claims in this single 

filing. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint under this case 

number, wherein he is directed to plead/allege only related claims. All unrelated claims should 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 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 5

be brought in separate suits. Plaintiff is advised that if he chooses to file an amended complaint, 

and fails to comply with Rule 18(a), the Court will count all frivolous/noncognizable unrelated 

claims that are dismissed as strikes, such that Plaintiff may be barred from filing in forma 

pauperis in the future. 

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (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, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 5 of 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 6

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:12-cv-00631-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 6