Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05917/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05917-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dewayne Crompton
Plaintiff
USA
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

DEWAYNE CROMPTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S.A.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5917 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 16-1.) 

 Dewayne Albert Crompton (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy

for violation of civil rights by federal actors. 

A. 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 fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 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

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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

B. RULE 8(a)

A plaintiff’s complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only

give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely

upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. Rule 8(a) also requires that

the plaintiff give notice of the relief which he seeks from the defendants.

The Amended Complaint submitted by Plaintiff does not conform to Rule 8(a). 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint names thirteen defendants and consists of over (38) parties,

consists of over 116 pages. In addition, only one of the Defendants named is within the

jurisdiction of this Court. Most of the individuals named are located at Lompoc, which is within

the Central District of California. At least two of the individuals are located in an entirely

different state. Moreover, the Amended Complaint does not set apart each claim for relief and

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 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

each Defendant so the Court can easily parse out the claims for relief and consists of a huge

narrative of various events that have occurred over the course of many years. The Court, having

literally hundreds of cases similar to Plaintiff’s pending before it at any given time, has not

examined the Amended Complaint in any detail as it does not have the resources to expend an

exorbitant amount of time attempting to peruse literally hundreds of pages of narrative to

determine who did what to whom and when. The Court can determine from the brief “statement

of facts” that Plaintiff is alleging a denial of access to courts and inmate appeals. The Court will

therefore, provide Plaintiff with the relevant law to aid him when he amends the Complaint to

comply with Rule 8(a). 

C. VENUE

The federal venue statute required that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, only one of the Defendants (Defendant Schultz) can be located within this

district. According to the Amended Complaint, some of the Defendants are found in Louisiana

and within the Central District of California. Pursuant to federal and Local Rules, when the

court finds that an action has not been commenced in the proper court, it may transfer the action

to the proper court or dismiss those Defendants and claims from the action where venue is

inappropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Local Rule 3-120(d).

In light of the need for Plaintiff to file an Second Amended Complaint, the Court will not

recommend dismissal of these Defendants and Plaintiff can simply omit them from the Second

Amended Complaint to be submitted. 

D. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. Access to Courts

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

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 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

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the

inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil

rights actions. Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances

or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. 

In addition, inmates do not have the right to a law library or legal assistance. Id. at 351. 

Law libraries and legal assistance programs are only the means of ensuring access to the courts. 

Id. Because inmates do not have “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal

assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury by establishing that his prison’s law

library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. Rather, an inmate

claiming interference with or denial of access to the courts must show that he suffered an actual

injury. Id. 

2. Inmate Appeals Process

There is no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth Circuit has held

that Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly

implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise

constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley

v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez

v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural

right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise

to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth

amendment"). A failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley,

supra. 

3. USA, Bureau of Prisons and Official Capacity

Bivens will not lie against the Untied States, agencies of the United States, or federal

agents in their official capacity. See, FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Vaccaro v.

Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 857 (9 Cir. 1996); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9 Cir. th th

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 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

1995.) Accordingly, Plaintiff may not maintain a Bivens action against the United States, the

Bureau of Prisons or any agent in his/her official capacity. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint violates Rule 8(a) and thus, does not

state any claims for relief. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a Second

Amended Complaint in compliance with Rule 8(a) should he desire to do so.

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second Amended Complaint how the conditions

complained of resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9 Cir. 1980). The Second Amended Complaint must specifically state how each th

Defendant is involved. Further, there can be no liability unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a Defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423,

U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 th

F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. th

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference

the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form. Plaintiff should complete the form to the best of his ability to

assist in providing all the necessary and relevant information to the Court;

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 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

a. File a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a Second

Amended Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary

dismiss the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110, for failure to

state a claim on which relief can be granted and failure to comply with Rule 8(a). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05917-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/24/06 Page 6 of 6