Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bortle
Defendant
T. Felker
Defendant
Kelly
Defendant
Patton
Defendant
Riggero
Defendant
Amos Ryles
Plaintiff

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS RYLES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2753 GEB DAD P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 7, 2008, plaintiff’s complaint

was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

The court finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to state cognizable

claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against defendant

Patton. If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. 

However, the court also finds that plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a

cognizable claim against defendants Bortle, Kelly, Riggero, and Felker. As the court previously

advised plaintiff, allegations of verbal harassment or abuse do not violate the Constitution. 

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171-72 (9th Cir. 2004); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 15 Filed 06/11/08 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

2

136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987) (vulgar language and verbal harassment do not state a constitutional

deprivation under § 1983). Even verbal conduct that constitutes a threat does not rise to the level

of a constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 924 (9th Cir. 1987). Thus, plaintiff’s

alleged deprivations of rights caused by defendants Bortle, Kelly, and Riggero’s verbal

harassment and threats do not give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

In addition, it is well-established that inmates do not have a constitutional right to

be incarcerated at a particular correctional facility or in a particular cell or unit within a facility. 

See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976). As the Ninth Circuit has explained:

An inmate’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his

conviction so that the state may change his place of confinement

even though the degree of confinement may be different and prison

life may be more disagreeable in one institution than in another. 

Unless there is some guarantee that transfer will not be effected

except for misbehavior or some other specified reason, due process

protections cannot apply.

Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530 (9th Cir. 1985). Thus, plaintiff’s alleged deprivations of

rights caused by defendant Felker’s decision regarding his place of confinement do not give rise

to a federal constitutional claim. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (1972).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the complaint is appropriate for defendant Patton. 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet, and a copy of the amended complaint filed March 17, 2008.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the

court at the same time:

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 15 Filed 06/11/08 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

3

d. Two copies of the amended complaint filed March 17, 2008.

4. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the complaint on the defendant or

request a waiver of service of summons from the defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

DATED: June 11, 2008.

DAD:9

ryle2753.1am

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 15 Filed 06/11/08 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS RYLES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2753 GEB DAD P

vs.

T. FELKER, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 one completed summons form;

 one completed USM-285 forms; and

 two true and exact copies of the amended complaint filed March 17, 2008.

DATED: .

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 15 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 4