Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02482/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02482-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence E. Dash
Plaintiff
Department of Corrections
Defendant
Folsom State Prison
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

LAWRENCE E. DASH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2482 FCD EFB P

vs.

FOLSOM STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See

42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff’s declaration makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1), plaintiff must pay the $350 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a). Plaintiff must make monthly payments of 20 percent of the preceding month’s

income credited to his trust account. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of

plaintiff shall forward payments from plaintiff’s account to the Clerk of the Court each time the

amount in the account exceeds $10 until the filing fee is paid. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-02482-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/08 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

2

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and, for the

reasons explained, finds it does not state a cognizable claim against any defendant. 

In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that on or around September 14, 2007, a particular

doctor diagnosed him has having a “highly contagious staph” infection. He alleges that prison

officials knew that there was a risk of infection based on some sort of notice from the County

Health Department in April of 2007, but failed to take reasonable action to prevent the infection

from spreading. Plaintiff faults Folsom State Prison and the California Department of

Rehabilitation and Corrections. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code creates a

cause of action against persons who deprive any individual of a right secured to him by the

Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48-49 (1988). Neither states nor their agencies are persons under § 1983. Will v.

Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). In order to state a claim that his right to

adequate medical care, including the prevention of infection, has been violated, plaintiff must

allege acts or omissions evidencing identified defendants knew of and disregarded plaintiff’s

serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511

U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Neither defendants’ negligence nor plaintiff’s general disagreement with

the treatment he received suffices to state a claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; Hutchinson v.

United States, 838 F.2d 390, 394 (9th Cir. 1988); Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 331 (9th

Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a claim against a particular defendant. To proceed,

plaintiff must file an amended complaint.

Any amended complaint must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that

plaintiff’s action is brought in the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s

allegations are true, and 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

Case 2:07-cv-02482-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/08 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

3

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). If plaintiff contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the

participants and allege their agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

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. The court

(and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. 

McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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 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. Thus, plaintiff must not include any 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, 1180 (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).

Case 2:07-cv-02482-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/08 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

4

A district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

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 an 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. Prison rules

require plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and plaintiff may be punished by prison

authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, § 3005.

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). 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 action.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in

accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-02482-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/08 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

5

3. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. Plaintiff shall file an

original and one copy of the amended complaint, which must bear the docket number assigned to

this case and be titled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an amended complaint will

result in a recommendation this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff files

an amended complaint stating a cognizable claim the court will proceed with service of process

by the United States Marshal. 

Dated: April 9, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02482-FCD-EFB Document 7 Filed 04/09/08 Page 5 of 5