Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02107/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02107-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Defendant
Toriano Germaine Smith
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TORIANO GERMAINE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-2107 TLN CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). (ECF Nos. 2, 5.) Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be 

granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 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

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

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 

“frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or that “seek[]

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

A claim “is [legally] frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). “[A] judge may dismiss . . . claims which are ‘based on indisputably meritless legal 

theories’ or whose ‘factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327), superseded by statute on other grounds as 

stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). The critical inquiry is whether a 

constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. 

Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227-28 (citations omitted).

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

“Failure to state a claim under § 1915A incorporates the familiar standard applied in the context 

of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 

680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). 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.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). “‘[T]he pleading must contain 

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 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

something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally 

cognizable right of action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur 

R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[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 

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.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In reviewing a complaint under this 

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. 

Co. v. Trs. of the Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading in the 

light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969) (citations omitted).

III. Complaint

Plaintiff alleges that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 

has subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment and violated his right to due process. (ECF 

No. 1.) Specifically, he alleges that the prison is failing to provide hot or warm water, forcing 

him to either forgo taking a shower or be subject to freezing cold water. (Id. at 3.) He further 

alleges that every time his food is delivered it is thrown on the floor, which is covered in fecal 

matter and other hazardous materials. (Id. at 4.) Finally, he alleges that his due process rights are 

being violated because he is being denied an appeals system. (Id. at 5.)

IV. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff does not name any defendants other than the CDCR, and his claims against the 

CDCR are barred by sovereign immunity. “[A]n unconsenting State is immune from suits 

brought in federal courts by her own citizens.” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974) 

(citations omitted). “Will[v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989),] 

establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have traditionally enjoyed Eleventh 

Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal court or state court.” 

Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990). Accordingly, because the CDCR is an arm of the 

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 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

state, plaintiff’s claims against the CDCR are barred. In order to state claims for cruel and 

unusual punishment or violation of due process, plaintiff must identify the individuals whose 

actions violated his rights and explain what they did or did not do that caused the violation.

Additionally, prisoners do not have “a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific 

prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann 

v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, the prison grievance procedure does 

not confer any substantive constitutional rights upon inmates and actions in reviewing and 

denying inmate appeals generally do not serve as a basis for liability under § 1983. Id. 

Therefore, plaintiff’s claims relating to the processing of appeals do not amount to a 

constitutional violation.

V. Leave to Amend

If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the 

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo

v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th 

Cir. 1981). 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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

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

his first 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled 

in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended 

complaint, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an 

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 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

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

VI. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant

Your request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and you are not required to pay the 

entire filing fee immediately.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because you cannot bring claims against 

the CDCR for violating your constitutional rights. You have to identify the people who violated 

your rights and explain what each person did or did not do.

If you choose to amend your complaint, the first amended complaint must include all of 

the claims you want to make because the court will not look at the claims or information in the 

original complaint. Any claims and information not in the first amended complaint will not 

be considered.

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may 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 this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an 

original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 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

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district.

Dated: April 7, 2020

13:smit2107.14.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-02107-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 6