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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Patrick R. Holley, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2006 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel prosecuting

this civil rights action in forma pauperis. This proceeding was

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

§ 636(b)(1). 

I have reviewed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A and find it states a cognizable claim against defendants 

Youngblood, Moreno, D. S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal

and K. Aronsen.

The complaint states no cognizable claim against the 

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 1 of 8
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

California Department of Corrections or the California Medical

Facility. Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are

dismissed.

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants

Youngblood, Moreno, D. S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal

and K. Aronsen and pursue his claims against only those

defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to

state a cognizable claim against the California Department of

Corrections and the California Medical Facility.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to

state a cognizable claim against the California Department of

Corrections and the California Medical Facility, he has 45 days

so to do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint and if he

does it unavoidably will delay this litigation.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants

Youngblood, Moreno, D. S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal

and K. Aronsen, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for

relief, then within 15 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 the California Department of Corrections and the

California Medical Facility 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 2 of 8
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

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). 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

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 3 of 8
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

litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from plaintiff’s 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 (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). It is sufficient, for example, for a prisoner

who claims the conditions of his imprisonment violate the Eighth

Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to

allege that an identified state actor used force against

plaintiff maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

(On the other hand, prison officers imposing discipline act in

haste, under pressure and without the luxury of a second chance;

therefore, no Eighth Amendment violation occurs where force is

applied to maintain or restore discipline but not maliciously and

sadistically.) 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and

understand plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, supra. 

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

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 4 of 8
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

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. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir.

1986). 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.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing a second-amended

complaint he 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 15 Cal. Admin. Code § 3005.

Title 42 of the United States Code § 1997e(a) provides that

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

administrative remedies as are available to him. The requirement

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 5 of 8
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

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.” 15 California

Administrative Code § 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 further is

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 defendants Youngblood, Moreno, D. S. Jones,

Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal and K. Aronsen.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against the California Department of Corrections

and the California Medical Facility are dismissed with leave to

amend. Within 45 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 and if he does it inevitably will delay this

litigation.

2. The pleading states cognizable claims against defendants

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Youngblood, Moreno, D. S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal

and K. Aronsen. With this order the Clerk of the Court shall

provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading and

the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

injunction filed March 21, 2005, seven USM-285 forms and

instructions for service of process on defendants Youngblood,

Moreno, D. S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal and K.

Aronsen. Within 15 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 eight copies

each of the March 21, 2005, complaint and motion. The court will

transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Youngblood, Moreno, D.

S. Jones, Davis, R. W. Williams, M. Veal and K. Aronsen 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 the

California Department of Corrections and the California Medical

Facility without prejudice.

Dated: June 2, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 7 of 8
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Patrick R. Holley, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-2006 MCE PAN P

vs. Notice of Submission of Documents

California Department

of Corrections,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff hereby submits the following documents in

compliance with the court's order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 7 completed forms USM-285 

 8 copies each of the March 21, 2005 

 Complaint & Motion

Dated: 

 _________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02006-MCE -EFB Document 14 Filed 06/03/05 Page 8 of 8