Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02622/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02622-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Corry
Plaintiff
Ron Davis
Defendant
R. Feston
Defendant
Chris Johnson
Defendant
J. Ju
Defendant
M. Voong
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CORRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02622-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Corry’s first amended complaint fails to state any claim for relief: the

claims against Ron Davis fail because Davis’s role as a grievance reviewer is not sufficient 

to confer liability, and the claims against Chris Johnson do not state what constitutional 

right was allegedly violated and any facts showing that a violation occurred. The first 

amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file a second amended complaint on or 

before July 20, 2020. If an amended complaint is not filed by that date in compliance with 

this Order, the case will be dismissed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Case 3:19-cv-02622-WHO Document 21 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

DISCUSSION

i. Original Complaint

In his original complaint, Corry alleged that in 2018 San Quentin prison guard J. Ju 

accused him of stabbing another prisoner. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Ju’s accusation led 

to Corry facing state criminal and prison disciplinary charges of attempted murder. He 

was acquitted of the state charge of murder, (id. at 4-5), but was found guilty of a weapon 

possession charge. Corry was also found guilty of the prison disciplinary charges, which 

resulted in an additional year added to his sentence and caused him to be placed in the 

SHU for 34 months. (Id. at 5). Corry raised claims against (i) J. Ju for falsely accusing 

him and for testifying falsely at the state criminal proceedings; (ii) R. Feston, who oversaw 

his prison disciplinary proceedings, for finding him guilty of the prison charges; and (iii) 

M. Voong, who denied Corry’s appeal of the prison disciplinary proceedings. 

I previously dismissed Corry’s claims against J. Ju with prejudice because a 

prisoner has no constitutionally guaranteed immunity from being falsely or wrongly 

accused of conduct which may result in the deprivation of a protected liberty interest. 

Case 3:19-cv-02622-WHO Document 21 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Sprouse v. Babcock, 870 F.2d 450, 452 (8th Cir. 1989). Furthermore, a witness is 

absolutely immune from liability for his testimony in state or federal court proceedings 

even if he committed perjury. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329-46 (1983) (police

officer witness at trial); Holt v. Castaneda, 832 F.2d 123, 127 (9th Cir. 1987) (police 

officer witness at probable cause hearing); Burns v. County of King, 883 F.2d 819 (9th Cir. 

1989) (social worker preparing affidavit for use at bail revocation proceeding). 

I also dismissed Corry’s claims against Voong with prejudice. Mere involvement in 

reviewing an inmate’s administrative grievance does not necessarily demonstrate 

awareness of an alleged violation, or contribute to the underlying violation. George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “Only persons who cause or participate in the 

violations are responsible.” Id. “Ruling against a prisoner on an administrative complaint 

does not cause or contribute to the violation.” Id. 

Corry’s due process and Eighth Amendment allegations against Feston were 

plausible. Retaining Corry in the SHU after his state court acquittal may have violated the 

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Defendant Feston was 

served with the complaint.

Before Feston filed a response, Corry filed a motion to file an amended complaint. 

(Dkt. No. 17.) Less than a week later, Feston filed a motion for summary judgment, which 

I denied without prejudice because the briefing schedule was suspended after Corry asked 

to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 18 and 19.) 

ii. First Amended Complaint

In the first amended complaint, Corry names only two defendants, apparently 

dropping his claims against any prior-named defendant. He alleges that Ron Davis, the 

warden of San Quentin, is responsible for the constitutional violations owing to his role as 

a grievance reviewer, and that Chris Johnson, Corry’s counselor, is responsible for failing 

in his “duty to do the paperwork to get plaintiff sent to general population instead of back 

to the (SHU).” (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 18 at 3, 4.) Corry does not state what 

constitutional rights were violated. 

Case 3:19-cv-02622-WHO Document 21 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Corry’s allegations against Ron Davis are DISMISSED without leave to amend 

because Davis’s role as a grievance reviewer is insufficient to link him to any 

constitutional violation. This point was made clear in a prior order. (Order of Service, 

Dkt. No. 9 at 3.) Mere involvement in reviewing an inmate’s administrative grievance 

does not necessarily demonstrate awareness of an alleged violation or contribute to the 

underlying violation. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “Only persons 

who cause or participate in the violations are responsible.” Id. “Ruling against a prisoner 

on an administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the violation.” Id.

Corry’s claim against Johnson is DISMISSED with leave to amend because it fails 

to state a claim for relief. First, Corry does not state what constitutional right was violated 

by Johnson’s alleged inaction. In his amended complaint, Corry must not only name 

which right was violated, but articulate specific facts showing that such a right was 

violated. Second, Corry has not established that Johnson was under any obligation to 

correct plaintiff’s housing assignment without a specific, written request from plaintiff, or 

that he even had the authority to revise plaintiff’s housing assignment; it is not clear that 

Johnson could on his own set aside a prison disciplinary finding without a rehearing or 

voiding of the prison disciplinary charges. Third, Corry should state whether he exhausted 

his claims against Johnson. 

In composing his amended complaint, Corry should also consider the contentions 

presented in Feston’s motion for summary judgment. The motion raises both factual and 

legal matters that Corry will have to address when his suit reaches the dispositive motion 

stage. For instance, Feston alleges Corry’s prison disciplinary charges were reheard (and 

reduced to one of weapon possession) and that his consequent sentence was recalculated to 

fit the prison and state criminal charges of which he was convicted. If that is true, it would 

indicate that the litigation has no merit.

 

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Corry’s first amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an 

Case 3:19-cv-02622-WHO Document 21 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

amended complaint on or before July 20, 2020. Failure to comply to file by that date an 

amended complaint that comports with all the instructions in this order will result in the 

dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

The new complaint must appear on this Court’s form, and include the caption and 

civil case number used in this order (19-02622 WHO (PR)) and the words SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint completely 

replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all 

the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the 

prior complaint by reference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2020

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02622-WHO Document 21 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 5