Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02857/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02857-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Everett Joseph Jewett
Plaintiff
Prison Health Services
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT JOSEPH JEWETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2857 MCE EFB P

vs.

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). Plaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel is prosecuting this civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

He has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff must make an initial partial payment of $3.32. See § 1915(b)(1). Thereafter, plaintiff

must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his

prison trust account. All payments shall be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of

the Court when amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid in full. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

////

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 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

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against defendant Dr. Hawley. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A.

The complaint does not state a cognizable claim against defendants Prison Health

Services or Sharron Denney. Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendant Hawley and

pursue his claims against only that defendant or he may delay serving that defendant and attempt

to state a cognizable claim against defendants Prison Health Services and Denney.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Prison Health Services and Denney, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to

amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendant Hawley, against whom he has

stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must return materials for service of

process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to

dismissal of all claims against defendants Prison Health Services and Denney without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff 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). 

To state a claim against a supervisor who did not personally inflict the injury alleged,

plaintiff must allege the supervisor (1) caused others to act, or knowingly refused to stop them

from acting, knowing or having reasonable cause to know they would inflict injury; (2) approved

such conduct and injury after the fact; or (3) so failed to train or control subordinates to avoid

such injury as to demonstrate reckless or callous indifference to constitutional injury. Redman v.

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 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

3

County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989); Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978); see also, Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 937 & fn. 4

(9th Cir. 2002).

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and

directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a

claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from his pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996)

(affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El

v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 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

4

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendant

Hawley. 

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 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

5

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action and make an initial

payment of $3.32. All payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Prison Health Services and Denney are dismissed with

leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to

attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his

complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendant Hawley. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall provide

to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed December 18, 2006, one USM-285

form and instructions for service of process on defendant Hawley. Within 20 days of service of

this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the

completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and two copies of the December 18, 2006,

complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendant Hawley will be required to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will

construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective

claims against defendants Prison Health Services and Denney without prejudice.

Dated: October 31, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 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

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EVERETT JOSEPH JEWETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2857 MCE EFB P

vs.

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 completed forms USM-285 

 copies of the 

 Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02857-ODW Document 16 Filed 11/01/07 Page 6 of 6