Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Benyamini
Plaintiff
T. Minton
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 

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MINTON,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01632 JAM DAD P

ORDER

 Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief 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). 

I. Filing Fee or Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

 Plaintiff has not paid the required filing fee of $400.00 or filed an application to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(a). Plaintiff will be granted thirty days to 

pay the required filing fee in full or submit a properly completed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

 Plaintiff‟s handwritten complaint is difficult to decipher because much of it is illegible. It 

appears, however, that plaintiff is attempting to allege that defendant correctional officer Minton 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 04/02/14 Page 1 of 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

2

subjected plaintiff to excessive cell searches in retaliation for plaintiff‟s pursuit of litigation 

against other correctional officers. 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only „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 Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 

U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 

allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 

(1976). The court must also construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and 

resolve all doubts in the plaintiff‟s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Here, the allegations in plaintiff‟s complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

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

the defendants and must allege facts that support 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 his 

claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2), the complaint will be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff leave to file an 

amended complaint if he wishes to pursue this action and will below set forth the legal standards 

governing the claim it appears that plaintiff is attempting to bring. 

III. Legal Standards Applicable to a Retaliation Claim

 It is well-established that prison inmates have a constitutional right to be free from 

retaliation for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment, including pursuing “„civil 

rights litigation in the courts.‟” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 566 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting 

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 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

3

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir.1995)). A prisoner‟s claim of unconstitutional 

retaliation has five elements. First, plaintiff must allege and show that he engaged in conduct 

protected by the First Amendment. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir.2012). 

Second, a “plaintiff must claim that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff.” Id.

(citing Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567). “The adverse action need not be an independent constitutional 

violation.” Id. (citing Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995). Third, plaintiff must 

allege and show a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. Id. 

Fourth, the plaintiff must allege and prove either a chilling effect on the exercise of his or her 

First Amendment rights or some other harm. Id. Finally, the plaintiff must allege and establish 

that the retaliatory action “„did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution.‟” Id.

(quoting Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985)). Here, if plaintiff elects to file an 

amended complaint, he must allege facts addressing each of these five elements with respect to 

his retaliation claim. 

IV. Amended Complaint

 If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint in this action, he must also allege facts 

demonstrating how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal 

constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Moreover, 

the amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in 

the deprivation of plaintiff‟s rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of 

official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

plaintiff‟s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be 

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an 

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

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 04/02/14 Page 3 of 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

4

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 

function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 

and the involvement of defendant in the alleged constitutional violation must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

V. Conclusion

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff shall submit, within thirty days from the date of this order, either the $400.00 

filing fee or a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis on the form provided 

with this order;

 2. Plaintiff‟s complaint filed August 7, 2013, is dismissed; 

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint 

that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to 

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must answer each question in the 

form complaint and the amended complaint must be legible; 

4. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice; and 

 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court's application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a non-prisoner and the form complaint for a section 1983 

action. 

Dated: April 1, 2014 

DAD:9 

beny1632.14ifp 

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 6 Filed 04/02/14 Page 4 of 4