From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunt v. Ramsey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 30, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-1129 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)

Opinion

No. 2:19-cv-1129 CKD P

03-30-2020

TYRONE HUNT, Plaintiff, v. J. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 3, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

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 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. 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.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

The court has reviewed plaintiff's amended complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

As to the contents of his second amended complaint, plaintiff is informed as follows:

1. Any challenge to prisoner disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the revocation of good conduct sentence credit must be brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus and not a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless the revoked sentence credit has been restored. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-47 (1996).

2. Plaintiff cannot proceed on a §1983 claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of the length of his sentence. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).

3. 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). Furthermore, 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).

4. Plaintiff's second amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by being "short" and "plain." To that end, the second amended complaint may not exceed 20 pages. Unnecessary background information shall be omitted and plaintiff should refrain from being verbose, for example, by not repeating the phrase "plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges" over and over again.

5. The Equal Protection Clause generally protects against unequal treatment as a result of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997).

6. In order to state a cognizable claim for violation of due process plaintiff must allege facts which suggest that he was deprived of a protected liberty interest. Such liberty interests are "generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, [citations omitted], nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

7. Prison officials generally cannot retaliate against inmates for exercising First Amendment rights. Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985). Because a prisoner's First Amendment rights are necessarily curtailed, however, a successful retaliation claim requires a finding that "the prison authorities' retaliatory action did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution or was not tailored narrowly enough to achieve such goals." Id. at 532. The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995).

Also, in order to state a claim for retaliation, plaintiff must point to facts indicating a causal connection between the adverse action and the protected conduct. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012).

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's second 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 a second amended complaint, the other pleadings no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

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

1. The stay imposed in this case is lifted.

2. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed.

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 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 second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Dated: March 30, 2020

/s/_________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1
hunt1129.14


Summaries of

Hunt v. Ramsey

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 30, 2020
No. 2:19-cv-1129 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)
Case details for

Hunt v. Ramsey

Case Details

Full title:TYRONE HUNT, Plaintiff, v. J. RAMSEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 30, 2020

Citations

No. 2:19-cv-1129 CKD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020)