Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00538-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carl Eckstrom
Plaintiff
Martin Hoshino
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARL ECKSTROM, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARTIN HOSHINO, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-0538–MCE-EFB-P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915, a request that the court screen his complaint, and a request that he styles as a 

motion for a new trial. 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect 

and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 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

II. Screening Requirement and Standards 

 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion 

of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 

 A pro se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to include a short and 

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the 

defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). 

While the complaint must comply with the “short and plaint statement” requirements of Rule 8, 

its allegations must also include the specificity required by Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

 To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than “naked 

assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of 

a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678. 

 Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have facial plausibility. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 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

III. Screening Order 

Pursuant to § 1915A, the court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) and finds 

that it must be dismissed with leave to amend because it does not comply with Rule 8 or state a 

claim upon which relief could be granted.1

 In the complaint, plaintiff purports to (1) list various documents that “form the basis for 

[his] claims,” (2) describe the factual basis for his claim, and (3) describe the exhibits that support 

his complaint. ECF No. 1 at 5.2 The complaint names Martin Hoshino, Undersecretary of 

CDCR, as the defendant. The court is unable to decipher plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. 

In the section of the complaint purporting to describe the factual basis of his claim, plaintiff 

alleges that Mexican Mafia gang members attempted to murder him in 1974, 1981, and 1987. Id. 

at 7-10. Despite plaintiff’s safety concerns, a “Mr. Hewitt” reported that plaintiff had none. Id.

at 10. Hewitt’s report was endorsed by CDCR and “became the Bible for all further dealings 

. . . .” Id. Plaintiff states that he has written letters to defendant Hoshino “in an attempt to clear 

up the misunderstanding.” Id. at 11. The nature of plaintiff’s claim for relief against defendant 

Hoshino, however, is not clear. 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair 

notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. 

Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of 

particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. As 

drafted, the complaint fails to provide defendant with “fair notice” of plaintiff’s claim against 

defendant. Rule 8, however, requires the pleader to set forth his averments in a simple, concise, 

and direct manner. Plaintiff has not done so in his complaint. 

Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an amended complaint, if he can allege a cognizable 

legal theory against a proper defendant and sufficient facts in support of that cognizable legal 

 1

 Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for the court to screen his complaint is denied as moot. 

His motion for a new trial, based on the fact that he has not received any court “orders or 

decisions” is also denied. 

2

 This and subsequent page number citations to plaintiff’s complaint are to the page 

number reflected on the court’s CM/ECF system and not to page numbers assigned by plaintiff. 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 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

theory. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (district courts must 

afford pro se litigants an opportunity to amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints). 

Should plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint shall clearly set 

forth the claims and allegations against each defendant. Any amended complaint must cure the 

deficiencies identified above and also adhere to the following requirements: 

Any amended complaint must identify as a defendant only persons who personally 

participated in a substantial way in depriving him 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). 

It must also contain a caption including the names of all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims. George 

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

Any amended complaint must be written or typed so that it so that it is complete in itself 

without reference to any earlier filed complaint. E.D. Cal. L.R. 220. This is because an amended 

complaint supersedes any earlier filed complaint, and once an amended complaint is filed, the 

earlier filed complaint no longer serves any function in the case. See Forsyth v. Humana, 114 

F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the “‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter 

being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967)). 

The court cautions plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or any court order may result in this action being dismissed. 

See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. 

 In addition, the court notes that the following legal standards may be applicable to 

plaintiff’s intended claims for relief: 

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal 

constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under 

///// 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 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

the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the 

defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between 

the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. 

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff may not sue any official on the theory that the official is liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948 

(2009). Because respondeat superior liability is inapplicable to § 1983 suits, “a plaintiff must 

plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has 

violated the Constitution.” Id. 

Under the Eighth Amendment, “prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from 

violence at the hands of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (internal 

quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). However, “not . . . every injury suffered by one 

prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials 

responsible for the victim’s safety.” Id. at 834. A prison official may be held liable for an assault 

suffered by one inmate at the hands of another only where the assaulted inmate can show that the 

injury is sufficiently serious, id. at 834 (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), and 

that the prison official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm, id. at 837. Thus, the 

relevant inquiry is whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a 

prisoner to a sufficiently substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 834 

(internal quotation omitted). 

To state a claim for violation of the right to procedural due process, plaintiff must allege 

facts showing: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and 

(2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 

2003). In the context of a disciplinary proceeding where a liberty interest is at stake, due process 

requires that “some evidence” support the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 

445, 455 (1985). The inmate must also receive: “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary 

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 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

charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and correctional goals, to 

call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense; and (3) a written statement by 

the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Id. at 454 

(citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974)). 

IV. Summary of Order 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 4) is granted. 

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected 

in accordance with the notice to the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. The complaint 

must bear the docket number assigned to this case and be titled “Amended 

Complaint.” Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff files an amended complaint stating a 

cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process by the United 

States Marshal. 

4. Plaintiff’s request that the court screen his complaint (ECF No. 7) and motion for a 

new trial (ECF No. 8) are denied. 

Dated: January 31, 2017.

Case 2:16-cv-00538-TLN-EFB Document 11 Filed 01/31/17 Page 6 of 6