Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02077/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S. Matis
Defendant
Antonio Perez
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

ANTONIO PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. MATIS,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-2077 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff 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. This 

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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

1915(a). 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 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 6 Filed 03/30/15 Page 1 of 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

2

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

1915(b)(2).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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 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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

A claim is legally frivolous when 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). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

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 in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 

738, 740 (1976), 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).

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 6 Filed 03/30/15 Page 2 of 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

3

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). ―A person  ̳subjects‘ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another‘s affirmative acts or 

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.‖ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

In his complaint plaintiff has identified High Desert State Prison Librarian S. Matis as the 

sole defendant. Therein plaintiff alleges that he submitted a law library request form for Priority 

Library User status with a letter from his attorney, indicating that he had a deadline to file a 

petition for review with the California Supreme Court. According to the allegations of the 

complaint, defendant Matis denied plaintiff‘s request. Plaintiff claims that defendant Matis has 

thereby denied him his right of access to the courts. (Compl. at 3 & Attachs.)

DISCUSSION

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 

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 6 Filed 03/30/15 Page 3 of 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

4

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 Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff 

leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, he must 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). 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).

To proceed on a denial of access to the courts claim, plaintiff is advised that the right of 

access to the courts ―forbids states from  ̳erect[ing] barriers that impede the right of access of 

incarcerated persons‖ to file civil actions that have a ―reasonable basis in law or fact.‖ Silva v. 

DeVittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Snyder v. Nolen, 380 F.3d 279, 290 

(7th Cir. 2004) & John L. v. Adams, 969 F.2d 228, 235 (6th Cir. 1992)). A prisoner asserting a

denial of access to the courts claim must allege the anticipated or lost underlying cause of action 

as well an ―actual injury,‖ — ―that is  ̳actual prejudice with respect to contemplated or existing 

litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to present a claim.‖ Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 348–49 (1996). See also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002). In any 

amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, he will need to allege facts specifying what his lost

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 6 Filed 03/30/15 Page 4 of 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

5

underlying cause of action was and clarify whether he suffered any ―actual injury‖ as a result of 

the actions allegedly taken by defendant Matis. 

Plaintiff is also 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 

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

function in the case. Therefore, in any amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, as in an original 

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‘s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc No. 5) is granted.

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

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 (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed.

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service 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‖; failure to file an amended 

complaint in accordance 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 send plaintiff the court‘s form for filing a civil 

rights action.

Dated: March 30, 2015

DAD:9

pere2077.14a

Case 2:14-cv-02077-GEB-DB Document 6 Filed 03/30/15 Page 5 of 5