Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00026/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathleen Allison
Defendant
Cindy Hebron
Defendant
Stacey Johnson
Defendant
Jean LeFlore
Defendant
Jeffrey P. Perrotte
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Perrotte is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on January 7, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) 

I.

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 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” or that “seeks 

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

JEFFREY P. PERROTTE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STACEY JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00026-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AN 

AMENDED COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY THE 

COURT OF HIS INTENT TO PROCEED ON THE 

CLAIM FOUND TO BE COGNIZABLE

[ECF No. 1]

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 1 of 15
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

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must demonstrate that each named defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-677; Simmons v. Navajo County, 

Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-1021 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are still entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor, but the pleading standard is now 

higher, Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted), and to survive 

screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow 

the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer 

possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff names Jean Leflore, Stacey Johnson, Cindy Hebron, Kathleen Allison and Does 1 

through 10 as Defendants in this action.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants engaged in retaliation for Plaintiff exercising his First 

Amendment rights to file grievances. 

In May 2008, Plaintiff interviewed with Defendants Hebron, Leflore and Johnson for a mentor 

position with Walden House at California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (CSATF). Plaintiff 

was questioned regarding the number of prison grievances and lawsuits he filed in the past against 

prison staff. He was informed that if selected as a mentor candidate at the Walden House, he would be 

expected to use different methods in resolving any grievances other than the standard 602 inmate 

grievance procedure. 

In October 2008, Plaintiff was called to the Facility Program Office where he was interviewed 

by Defendants Hebron, Leflore and Johnson. Plaintiff was questioned again about his history of filing 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 2 of 15
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

grievances and in assisting other inmates in accessing the courts. Plaintiff was asked about a recent 

inmate grievance he filed regarding placement in a janitorial vocational training program and if he 

would be willing to refrain from filing grievances if he were accepted into the mentor program.

In November 2008, Plaintiff was accepted into the Walden House Substance Abuse Treatment 

Program as a mentor candidate. During orientation, Plaintiff was taught the tools of a therapeutic 

community and the family values of Walden House. During the mentor meetings, it was stressed to 

Plaintiff that grievances were to be resolved using the tools of the Walden House. 

In August 2009, Plaintiff was called to the supervising counselor’s office and Defendants 

Hebron, Johnson and Leflore were furious and yelled at Plaintiff regarding an article that had been 

published on July 22, 2009, in numerous newspapers which was critical of the Warden and the policies 

at SATF. Defendants called Plaintiff a liar for not mentioning the article (which had been submitted 

prior to interviewing for the mentor program) that violated the “family values” of the Walden house. 

A couple hours later, Plaintiff was “grouped” by all the mentors for writing the article and violating 

Walden House “family values” and was placed on therapeutic contract with the mentors. Plaintiff had 

to apologize to Defendants, give seminars to core groups, give seminars to resident clusters on trust, 

prepare a presentation to the mentors on trust, clean showers, and restrain from any mentor activities 

for thirty days. Plaintiff was also removed from the band program and cluster responsibilities by his 

supervising mentor, Senior Mentor John Ray.

Plaintiff began receiving many complaints from residents regarding inappropriate conduct by 

Defendant Johnson during group sessions. Plaintiff requested a meeting with Defendant Johnson to 

address the concerns. The meeting took place in September 2009, in Johnson’s office and Plaintiff 

was informed, “You represent Walden House, not the residents. Your job is to put any complaints 

about me to rest, not stir the pot. My expectation is that you will do your job. Don’t bring these 

complaints to me again.” Plaintiff contacted Defendant Leflore on the yard and told him about the 

complaints and Defendant Johnson’s response to Plaintiff. Defendant Leflore told Plaintiff that 

Johnson was correct and that our role as mentors was to protect Walden House from any scrutiny by 

the prison administration. 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 3 of 15
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

In September 2009, during the union of body and mind event, Plaintiff was confronted by 

Defendant Johnson in the presence of Senior Mentor John Ray. Johnson was furious that Plaintiff had 

switched microphones prior to making announcements and prior to performing. Defendant accused 

Plaintiff of being a racist and stormed away. 

Plaintiff was informed by Senior Mentor Ray the following day that Defendant Johnson had 

discovered that Plaintiff was assisting some residents in filing complaints against her and wanted to 

get rid of Plaintiff. Senior Mentor Ray also indicated that Defendants Johnson, Leflore and Hebron 

were afraid that Plaintiff was going to author an additional newspaper article that was critical of their 

behavior towards residents and critical of the drug program at the prison. Senior Mentor Ray 

informed Plaintiff that assisting residents had to come to an end or he would not be able to protect 

Plaintiff from Defendants. 

In February 2010, Plaintiff was threatened by Defendants Johnson and Leflore about assisting 

residents in filing grievances and petitions in the court. Plaintiff was instructed to cease these 

activities immediately.

In March 2010, Plaintiff was informed by Walden House Provider, Sue Rudd, that Defendants 

Johnson and Leflore had asked her to lie regarding Plaintiff’s work in the cluster to justify firing 

Plaintiff and removing him from the program.

In July 2010, Plaintiff was told by Senior Mentor G. Scott Holland that Defendant Johnson was 

“dead-set” on causing Plaintiff harm for helping residents file grievances against her. Holland 

bragged that he was having a relationship with Defendant Johnson.

In August 2010, Plaintiff requested a meeting with Defendants Johnson, Leflore and Hebron. 

Plaintiff informed Defendants of the complaints by residents regarding Johnson’s conduct and 

Leflore’s unwillingness to address the behavior as Program Director. Plaintiff requested Defendant 

Hebron, as the Warden’s liaison to Walden House, do something about it. Defendants began yelling 

and screaming at Plaintiff that he was just an inmate and would not dictate anything to them. Plaintiff

was warned that if any grievances were filed by Plaintiff, they would take adverse actions against 

Plaintiff. Defendant Hebron stated, “You agreed not to file grievances if you were accepted into 

Walden House Mr. Perrotte. If you cannot abide by these rules, you will be sent back to B-Yard.” It 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 4 of 15
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

should be noted, White or Hispanic inmates who were sent back to B-Yard were assaulted by the 

inmates there for agreeing to inter-racial bunk. Defendants were aware of this and utilized this as a 

significant threat for residents.

In September 2010, Plaintiff received state certification as an alcohol and drug counselor and 

requested his pay be adjusted to be paid equivalent to other mentors who had received state 

certification. The request was denied.

On October 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed a CDCR-602 inmate appeal challenging the pay scale and 

mentor program. The appeal was assigned to Defendant Leflore who refused to answer the appeal. 

Plaintiff forwarded a request to prison administration to compel Defendant Leflore to answer the 

appeal which infuriated Defendant who contacted Plaintiff on the yard and threatened that “your days 

here are numbered.”

On approximately November 1, 2010, Plaintiff was paged to an “emergency” mentor meeting. 

The mentors present indicated that Defendants Hebron, Leflore and Johnson had requested they 

“group” Plaintiff regarding the latest grievance and for violating the concepts of “family value.” 

Plaintiff was placed on contract again and ordered to perform additional tasks to make amends for 

filing the grievance.

On approximately November 3, 2010, Walden House provider, Sue Rudd, warned Plaintiff that 

Defendant Johnson had told her that she was going to give Plaintiff a rules violation to “teach” him a 

lesson for filing the grievance on the mentor program in order to get Plaintiff fired. Ms. Rudd stated 

Johnson was very upset because Plaintiff was assisting some residents file complaints against 

Defendant Johnson and other Walden House staff.

On December 29, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to Doctor V. Eisen, Chief Executive Officer, 

Walden House, complaining about Defendants Johnson and Leflore. A copy of this letter was sent to 

Defendant’s supervisor, Wayne Garcia, Defendant Hebron and Warden at SATF.

On February 19, 2011, Plaintiff served a CDCR-22 form on Defendant Leflore for not 

adjudicating Plaintiff’s 602 inmate appeal on the mentor program as required by CDCR rules. 

Defendant Leflore snatched the form out of Plaintiff’s hands and walked away stating, “I told you that 

you would regret this.” 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 5 of 15
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

On March 10, 2011, Plaintiff was “confronted” by some of the mentors for pursuing the appeal 

on the mentor program and told to quit or stop filing grievances, writing Doctor Vitka, and helping 

residents with their grievances.

On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff went to facility captain V. Ramirez’s office and filed a complaint 

against Defendant Johnson and requested internal affairs investigate her inappropriate relationship 

with mentor S. Holland for smuggling contraband into the prison. Captain Ramirez indicated he 

would contact internal affairs.

On March 25, 2011, Plaintiff again went to captain Ramirez’s office and informed him of 

Defendant Johnson’s knowledge of his “confidential complaint.” Captain Ramirez indicated that he 

would look into it.

On May 29, 2011, Plaintiff was having a conversation with Defendant Leflore when Defendant 

Johnson walked up and started yelling at Plaintiff for failing to move a resident. Defendant Johnson 

stated, “Don’t forget, you’re just an inmate!” Johnson further stated, “I know your case, you’re 

nothing but a mother-fucking drunk!” I immediately asked Defendant Leflore to address this outburst 

from Johnson as her immediate supervisor and Leflore just walked away. I told Defendant Johnson I 

was immediately filing a staff misconduct complaint against her and Johnson stated, “You’re going to 

regret this and you’re going to regret ratting on me.”

On May 29, 2011, Plaintiff immediately filed a staff misconduct appeal against Defendant 

Johnson.

On April 1, 2011, Plaintiff received three separate laudatory memorandum from Walden House 

provider’s Sue Rudd, Mona Velasquez and Doris Trapp who were troubled with the actions of 

Defendant Johnson. Sue Rudd was immediately fired and ordered off prison grounds when she told 

Defendants she was going to tell the truth about their retaliatory conduct towards Plaintiff. Mona 

Velasquez and Doris Trapp were admonished for authoring memorandums.

On April 3, 2011, Plaintiff was served a CDC-115 Rules Violation Report authored by 

Defendant Johnson alleging “Behavior That Could Lead to Violence.” This fraudulent disciplinary 

report was logged as F-11-03-013 and was motivated by Plaintiff filing the staff misconduct appeal.

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 6 of 15
7

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

On April 8, 2011, Plaintiff was called before Senior Hearing Officer Lieutenant James who 

found Plaintiff not guilty of the charges filed by Defendant Johnson. Correctional officer E. Guillen 

testified that the allegations by Defendant Johnson were not true as officer Guillen witnessed the 

interaction referenced in the CDC-115. Lieutenant James found the charges to be in retaliation for 

Plaintiff filing the staff misconduct appeal.

Approximately two days later, Plaintiff was confronted by Defendant Johnson who stated, 

“you got lucky on the 115 but I have something else planned for you.”

On April 10, 2011, Plaintiff again contacted the facility captain to inquire as to when Plaintiff 

would be interviewed by internal affairs and to inform the captain of the continued threats by 

Defendants Johnson and Leflore. 

On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff authored and forwarded a second letter to Doctor E. Eisen, Walden 

House, regarding the actions of her employees.

On April 14, 2011, former Walden House provider, Sue Rudd, emailed Plaintiff’s website 

detailing retaliatory actions by Defendants Johnson and Leflore against Plaintiff for engaging in 

protected conduct.

On April 16, 2011, Plaintiff was contacted on the yard by Lieutenant Alva who stated, “Did 

you get your new chrono yet?” Plaintiff indicated that he did not know what Alva was talking about 

and he stated, “Oh, you soon will.”

On April 19, 2011, Plaintiff was paged to the program office and placed in a cage. Plaintiff 

was informed by DeOchoa that he was being rehoused in administrative segregation pending 

investigation into allegations Plaintiff made against Defendants Johnson, Leflore, and other Walden 

House employees. DeOchoa approached Plaintiff and stated, “You probably shouldn’t have filed the 

grievances and ‘ratted’ on Stacey.”

Also, on April 19, 2011, the administrative segregation sergeant approached the cage and 

stated, “This is the guy that likes to file grievances?” Shortly thereafter, the sergeant brought a large 

inmate out of a cell and placed him in the cage next to me. Inmate Stroud told Plaintiff the Sergeant 

wanted him to come and talk to Plaintiff about being his cellie. Inmate Stroud then stated, “They 

brought your Jewish food to the cell already, I’m Jewish too.” The sergeant came back and said, 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 7 of 15
8

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

“Okay let’s cell them up.” Both of them were cuffed-up and brought to a cell. After the cell door was 

closed, inmate Stroud squeezed by Plaintiff to make sure he was the first to be uncuffed. As soon as 

the handcuffs were removed from inmate Stroud, he instantaneously began striking Plaintiff in the 

face and torso area. The escorting officer, Megallon, immediately began spraying o.c. pepper spray 

into the cell and covered Plaintiff’s body with spray. Plaintiff was still cuffed and was now being 

struck without the ability to see. Once the assault ended, Plaintiff was pulled from the cell and 

escorted to a shower for decontamination. Plaintiff was told, “This is what happens to those who like 

to tell on staff in ad-seg.” Plaintiff was suffering excruciating pain from the assault and from the o.c. 

pepper spray which covered his entire body including the groan area as Plaintiff was only wearing a 

pair of boxer shorts. Plaintiff was escorted to a holding cell and the ad-seg sergeant approached and 

Plaintiff stated, “Nice set-up.” He responded, “prove it.” After being housed in a different cell, 

Plaintiff was informed by an officer that inmate Stroud was a level IV inmate (Plaintiff was a level II 

at the time), a validated Skinhead and member of the Security Threat Group II and that Plaintiff should 

never have been placed in the cell with Stroud under any circumstances. 

On April 20, 2011, Plaintiff was interviewed by the facility F captain. Plaintiff told the captain 

that he wanted an investigation done on the assault and battery suffered on April 19, 2011. The 

captain stated, “good luck on that.” 

Approximately ten days later, Plaintiff was pulled from the ad-seg cell and interviewed by 

Investigative Services Lieutenant S. Ramirez. During this interview, Plaintiff shared all of the 

information Plaintiff knew about Defendants Johnson, Leflore and other Walden House employees, 

also about the retaliation Plaintiff was experiencing for filing grievances by all Defendants. 

Lieutenant Ramirez took a few notes but then began questioning Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s 

daughter, Ashley. Plaintiff asked the Lieutenant why he wanted to know about Plaintiff’s daughter 

and the Lieutenant refused to answer. Plaintiff was returned to the cell and discovered that all of 

Plaintiff’s properly, including legal work, had been removed by investigative services.

On April 27, 2011, Plaintiff appeared before Classification and was retained in ad-seg. 

Plaintiff requested an investigation regarding the assault and battery suffered on April 19, 2011. 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 8 of 15
9

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

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff was placed in a holding cell by investigative services where 

Plaintiff’s property was in boxes. Plaintiff was given thirty minutes to decide what three boxes, out of 

six, Plaintiff was going to keep. Plaintiff discovered some of Plaintiff’s legal work and property 

missing and damaged.

On May 20, 2011, an officer approached Plaintiff’s cell and stated, “The reason you’re still in 

ad-seg is because someone is trying to set you up and mailed in a letter detaining an escape plan and 

referring to a smuggled cell phone, along with photocopies of police badges.” The officer then stated, 

“We think Stacey Johnson mailed it in.”

Approximately two days later, Plaintiff received a letter from Plaintiff’s wife, Michelle 

Perrotte, indicating that her, Plaintiff’s daughter Ashley, and Plaintiff’s father-in-law, Doctor Edward 

Lambert, had just been interviewed by Special Agent John Santos with the CDCR regarding an escape 

letter that had been addressed to Plaintiff and intercepted by the prison on April 27, 2011. The letter 

was purportedly signed by Plaintiff’s daughter Ashley with a fake return address in Pasadena, 

California. CDCR believed that the letter was written to cause Plaintiff significant harm and the 

investigation did reveal or suggest a possible motive for the origination of the letter with the incident 

involving Stacey Johnson at the prison.

On June 15, 2011, Plaintiff appeared before classification and cleared to be returned to Facility 

F. Classification indicated they believed Plaintiff was being wrongly accused and did not deserve to 

be in ad-seg. Plaintiff inquired as to what was being done regarding the retaliation for exercising 

protected conduct and the committee chairperson indicated that information was confidential.

Plaintiff was escorted back to Facility F with the remainder of Plaintiff’s property. 

Approximately four hours later, officers came to the unit where Plaintiff was housed, cuffed Plaintiff 

and rehoused Plaintiff in ad-seg without the property Plaintiff had in his cell just four hours earlier. 

Plaintiff was told by the officers that Defendant Johnson had placed a CDCR-128B informational 

chrono in Plaintiff’s file falsely indicating that she did not feel safe with Plaintiff on the facility 

because, among other statements, “Plaintiff threatened her that Plaintiff was going to send articles 

about her to newspapers.” This CDCR-128B was dated April 13, 2011, just five days after Plaintiff 

had been found not guilty on the rules violation report issued by Defendant Johnson.

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 9 of 15
10

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

Approximately a week later, Plaintiff appeared before classification and told, “We believe this 

chrono is retaliation by Johnson and that it is safer for you to be away from her before she does 

something even worse to you. You will remain in ad-seg until you are transferred.

On August 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed an additional staff misconduct appeal on Defendant Johnson 

requesting an investigation into Johnson’s retaliatory actions. The institution refused to process the 

appeal and after two attempts, Plaintiff sent the appeal to the Chief of Inmate Appeals in Sacramento, 

California, where it was again rejected. Plaintiff informed the Chief of Inmate Appeal of the 

investigation that Defendant Johnson mailed an escape letter to Plaintiff which caused Plaintiff 

significant injury, as well as filing the false disciplinary and the challenged CDCR-128B. Plaintiff’s 

request for the appeal to be processed, as required by CDCR policies, was rejected. 

On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff was transported to the California Men’s Colony in San Luis 

Obispo, California. Upon arrival, a significant amount of Plaintiff’s property was damaged and 

missing.

In April 2012, one of Plaintiff’s Inmate Appeals on Defendant Johnson was granted at the 

Director’s Level of review. This appeal required Defendant to remove reference to the CDC-115, 

Rules Violation Report, which was dismissed in the interest of justice from the fraudulent CDCR128B authored by Defendant Johnson on April 13, 2011.

On July 10, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter, purportedly from Plaintiff’s daughter, speaking 

of plans to destroy Plaintiff’s chances at parole and other outrageous statements. The CDCR special 

agent that investigated the escape letter was contacted by Plaintiff’s counselor and this letter was 

added to their investigative file. Agent Santos believed the letter was sent by the same source and was 

motivated by the recent Director’s Level appeal grant.

On October 10, 2012, Plaintiff appeared before the parole board and the fraudulent (escape) 

letters and Defendant Johnson’s false allegations were discussed at length.

On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff received another letter purportedly from Plaintiff’s daughter with 

more outrageous content. This was forwarded to CDCR investigations.

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 10 of 15
11

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

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff appeared before the parole board who required Plaintiff to address 

the escape letters sent by Defendant Johnson, as well as Defendant Johnson’s false allegations in the 

CDCR-128B form April 13, 2011.

On August 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s parole grant was reversed by Governor Brown due in part to 

the escape letters and false allegations by Defendant Johnson.

In October 2013, Plaintiff’s attorney spoke with Special Agent John Santos regarding the 

escape letters used by Governor to reverse Plaintiff’s parole grant and Santos stated, “I have 

determined the letters sent to Mr. Perrotte are fraudulent and intended to set Perrotte up to be denied 

parole at his upcoming hearings. Plaintiff continues to receive fraudulent letters from the same source.

On September 3, 2014, Plaintiff was required, again, to address the referenced letters and 

Defendant Johnson’s fraudulent allegations on April 13, 2011, at Plaintiff’s parole hearing. 

At no time did Defendant Leflore and Hebron exercise their supervisory responsibility and 

prevent Defendant Johnson from continually retaliating against Plaintiff for exercising protected 

conduct, and, at times, participated directly in the retaliation. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Retaliation

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to be 

free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing

Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). Also protected by the First Amendment is the 

right to pursue civil rights litigation in federal court without retaliation. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 

1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2011). “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation 

entails five basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an 

inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 

inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a 

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005).

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for 

retaliation against Defendants Johnson, Leflore, and Hebron.

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 11 of 15
12

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

B. Cruel and Unusual Liability

The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from inhumane methods of punishment and from 

inhumane conditions of confinement. Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Although prison conditions may be restrictive and harsh, prison officials must provide prisoners with 

food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 

825, 832-33 (1994) (quotations omitted). Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to 

protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners because being violently assaulted in 

prison is simply not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833-34 (quotation marks omitted); Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 

2009); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). However, prison officials are liable 

under the Eighth Amendment only if they demonstrate deliberate indifference to conditions posing a 

substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate; and it is well settled that deliberate indifference occurs 

when an official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 841 (quotations omitted); Clem, 566 F.3d at 1181; Hearns, 413 F.3d at 1040.

Based on Plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff states a cognizable claim for cruel 

and unusual punishment against Defendants Johnson and Leflore based on their placement of Plaintiff 

in the administrative segregation housing unit with a rival cellmate who attacked Plaintiff. 

C. Supervisory Liability

Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of subordinate 

employees based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 

977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 

(9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). “A 

supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation, 

or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the 

constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 989) (internal quotation 

marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. “Under the latter 

theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if 

supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 12 of 15
13

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

constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 

(citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability against Defendant Allison based on her position as Warden at 

SATF. Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any allegations supporting the existence of a supervisory 

liability claim against Warden Allison. The only basis for such a claim would be respondeat superior, 

which is precluded under section 1983. 

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Johnson, Leflore 

and Hebron in violation of the First Amendment, and a cognizable claim for cruel and unusual 

punishment against Defendants Johnson and Leflore in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff 

has not sufficiently alleged facts for any other claims against any of the other named Defendants. 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 may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint and is agreeable to proceeding only on 

the claim for retaliation against Defendants Johnson, Leflore and Hebron and the cruel and unusual 

punishment claim against Defendants Johnson and Leflore, Plaintiff may so notify the Court in 

writing, and the Court will issue a recommendation for dismissal of the other claims and Defendants, 

and will forward Plaintiff three (3) summonses and three (3) USM-285 form for completion and 

return. Upon receipt of the forms, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to initiate service of 

process.

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). 

Plaintiff must identify how each individual defendant caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional or other federal rights: “The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on 

the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to 

have caused a constitutional deprivation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988). With 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 13 of 15
14

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

respect to exhibits, while they are permissible if incorporated by reference, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), they 

are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In other words, it is 

not necessary at this stage to submit evidence to prove the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint because 

at this stage Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true.

Although Plaintiff’s factual allegations will be accepted as true and “the pleading standard 

Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’” “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, 555 (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. (citing Twombly, 

550 U.S. at 556).

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes 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). 

The amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 

pleading.” Local Rule 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 at 567 (citing 

London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

In other words, even the claims that were properly stated in the original complaint must be completely 

stated again in the amended complaint. Finally, Plaintiff is advised that, should he choose to amend, 

he may not bring unrelated claims in the same action. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must either:

a. File an 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 an amended complaint 

and wishes to proceed only against Defendants Johnson, Leflore and Hebron for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Johnson 

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 14 of 15
15

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

and Leflore for cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to 

obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00026-NONE-SAB Document 8 Filed 04/13/15 Page 15 of 15