Norwood v. Diaz, et al.

Filing 10

SECOND SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/13/2014. Amended Complaint due by 12/18/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form) (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DONALD R. NORWOOD,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13-cv-01143-BAM (PC)
SECOND SCREENING ORDER
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE
TO AMEND
(ECF No. 9)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

15
16

I.

Screening Requirement and Standard

17

Plaintiff Donald R. Norwood (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2014, the

19

Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.)

20

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed on November 6, 2014, is currently before the Court for

21

screening.

22

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

23

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

24

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or

25

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary

26

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28

27

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

28
1

1

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

2

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not

3

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

4

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937,

5

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65

6

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge

7

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009)

8

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

9

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings

10

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

11

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially

12

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each

13

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949

14

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

15

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere

16

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

17

678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
Plaintiff’s Allegations

18

II.

19

Plaintiff is currently housed at California State Prison, Corcoran (CSP-Corcoran). The

20

events in the complaint are alleged to have occurred at California Substance Abuse Treatment

21

Facility/CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Ralph Diaz; (2)

22

Lieutenant F. A. Rodriguez; (3) Lieutenant Lunez; (4) Facility Administrator Patrick Darnell; (5)

23

Jose Munoz, R.N.; (6) Fragino Arola, R.N.: (7) Stephanie Moore, Dialysis Technician; (8)

24

Correctional Sergeant A. Chan; (9) Correctional Sergeant C. Garza; (10) Correctional Sergeant

25

D. Lopez; (11) Correctional Counselor M. Hernandez; (12) Correctional Officer H. Arriaga; (13)

26

Correctional Officer J. Carlos; and (14) Correctional Officer A. Oregel.

27

///

28

///
2

1

Claim 1:

2

In claim 1, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

3

Plaintiff has been harass/retaliated against, and denied medical care, in the form
of false disciplinary reports (CDCR 115 being filed. Documents in Plaintiff C
File being manipulated to influence committee ICC/UCC action. Also, along
with medical/correctional staff deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Plaintiff endured constant duress, due to all above defendants mentioned herein,
collectively participated in violation of Plaintiff 1st and 14th amendment right of
the U.S. Constitution. Which ultimately, hindered Plaintiff from achieving any
legitimate penological goals.

4
5
6
7
8
9

(ECF No. 9, pp. 3, 5.)
Claim 2:

10

In claim 2, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

11

On August 9, 2012 Plaintiff filed appeal (CDCR 602) against dialysis escort trans,
and (19) prison dialysis staff, in regards to retaliation. And the filing of this
grievance resulted to no avail. Plaintiff filed an Inmate Request dated 9.5.12, to
clarify losted [sic] appeal. (See attached Exhibit (b) already on file)

12
13
14

(ECF No. 9, p. 5.)

15

Claim 3:

16

In claim 3, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

17

On August 28, 2012 Plaintiff submitted appeal (CDCR 602 grievance (log no.
SATF-C-12-04316) for continuous retaliation by dialysis escort trans C/Os
(Correctional Officers) Plaintiff suffered reprisals by Defendants Lt. F. A.
Rodriguez, Sgt. A. Chan, Sgt. C. Garza, C/O H. Arriaga, C/O J. Carlos, and C/O
A. Oregel. In relation to providing inadequate healthcare, a consensus
collectively with (19) dialysis administration! (See attached Exhibit (20) already
on file)

18
19
20
21
22

(ECF No. 9, p. 6.)

23

Claim 4:

24

In claim 4, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

25

On September 5, 2012, Plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
By defendants RN Jose Munoz and RN Fragino Arola, who attempted to assess
me again after previously assess by an register nurse. Purposely and maliciously
creating confrontation, due to Plaintiff previous appeals. And “upon information
and belief” patient do have the right to refuse any portion of the treatment under
the Davita Patient Rights. Though I didn’t refuse, it was done already. However,

26
27
28

3

1
2
3
4

ultimately my dialysis treatment was terminated by defendants RN Jose Munoz,
RN Fragino Arola, Sgt. A. Chan and C/O H. Arriaga. Plaintiff request to consult
with Facility Administrator, but to no avail. (See attached Exhibit (E) already on
file)
(ECF No. 9, p. 6.)

5

Claim 5:

6

In claim 5, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

7

On September 11, 2012 Plaintiff filed appeal (CDC 602) against both RNs J.
Munoz/F. Arola . . . for depriving me of adequate medical care by terminating my
dialysis care. Both RNs conduct demonstrated malicious and sadistic intent, to
hinder my health, which it did. “E.g.”, not removing excessive fluid that cause
edema, Plaintiff didn’t receive hemodialysis medication required to take
undergoing treatment, Epogen and Zemplar. Plaintiff was checked by the
institution yard RN, who confirm that Plaintiff needed to be dialysis or dialize,
and was denied treatment once the yard RN called (19) chair dialysis. (See
attached appeal log no. HC 120001416 Exhibit F)

8
9
10
11
12
13

(ECF No. 9, pp. 6-7.)

14

Claim 6:

15

In claim 6, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

16

Plaintiff was informed by dialysis Sgt. Velasco, at (19) chair prison, that the
facility administrator Patrick Darnell would consult with me regarding HC appeal
(CDCR 602) log no. SATF-SC-12001416, and all the atrocities going on at (19)
chair prison dialysis. However, no consult was conducted to resolve matters
relevant herein.

17
18
19
20

(ECF No. 9, p. 7.)

21

Claim 7:

22

In claim 7, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

23

On 10-1-12 Plaintiff was undergoing renal dialysis, and during the course of the
treatment RN Jose Munoz gave me my dialysis medication w/o doing an
assessment, in complete contrast to 9-5-12 incident of defendants RN J. Munoz,
RN F. Arola, SGT. A Chan and C/O H. Arriaga, all conspiring and terminating
for not being assess, even thought I was prior to both RN defendants asking. Now
in reference to your Screening Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to
Amend. Plaintiff refused to be assess by both RNs because I already was prior.
And Plaintiff was exercising his right to deny any portion of the treatment –not
the treatment in whole, only care from the two (2) RN defendants mentioned. My

24
25
26
27
28

4

1
2
3

whole dialysis treatment wasn’t suppose to be terminated.
discretion to refuse treatment in part.

Plaintiff has the

(ECF No. 9, p. 7.)

4

Claim 8:

5

In claim 8, Plaintiff alleges as follows:

6

On 10-25-12 Plaintiff submitted appeal (CDCR 602) log no. SATF C-1205076 against Correctional Counselor (CCI) M. Hernandez, for falsifying
documents, and the filing of this appeal resulted to Plaintiff receiving (CDC 695)
forms citing errors which was committed. Which ultimately hindered and
impeded Plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies. Also, defendant (CCI) M.
Hernandez, made threatening remarks, and informed me “Im Going to pay for my
involvement with an latina woman.” That showed his motive/intent to retaliate.
(See attached Exhibit (H) already on file)

7
8
9
10
11

(ECF No. 9, p. 8.)

12

Claim 9:

13

In claim 9, Plaintiff alleges:

14

On 11-9-12 Plaintiff appeal (CDCR 602) was hear at the second (2nd) level review
by dialysis lieutenant F. H. Rodriguez. and while talking with defendant, he
because irate stating, “What I did pertaining to Plaintiff involvement with an
latina, is a slap in the face to CDC administration, and if he and his colleagues
want, they can create my stay here miserable.” And defendant continue to make
insulting remarks oppose to attempting to resolve matters, by dialysis escort trans
correctional officers (19) prison.

15
16
17
18
19

(ECF No. 9, p. 8.)

20

Claim 10:

21

In claim 10, Plaintiff alleges:

22
23
24
25
26
27

On 12-1-12 at CSATF (19) prison dialysis, defendants RN J. Munoz and Dialysis
technician Stephanie Moore, cause cruel and unusual punishment, and
negligence towards a serious medical need. Again . . . Plaintiff is referencing to
the response, Screening Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend.
Stating “At least on defendant stated that Plaintiff would be fine on the heparin”
which isn’t an difference of opinion with the healthcare providers. However,
both defendants went against doctors orders, and purposely with malicious intent
cause Plaintiff physical harm. By giving Plaintiff Heparin medication, and not
rectifying it once brought to both defendant attention. A form of retaliation
towards all relevant matters.

28
5

1

(ECF No. 9, p. 8.)

2

Claim 11:

3

In claim 11, Plaintiff alleges:

4

On 1-24-13 Plaintiff was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by
defendants correctional officers J. Carolos and A. Oregel, who both defendants
stripped search Plaintiff w/o legitimate cause, that ultimately end with both
defendants making threatening remarks, stating “You[’]re going to get it, and you
know what for.” Also, not finding any contraband on/or in Plaintiff possession,
that displays an constant form of retaliation and harassment.

5
6
7
8

(ECF No. 9, p. 9.)

9

Claim 12:

10

In claim 12, Plaintiff alleges:

11

On 1-26-13 (19) prison dialysis, defendant RN Farola asked, “If Im fine” and
plaintiff responded motioning my head yeas, at which defendant became irate and
hostile admitting, “He don’t have to assess me, but he has to ask if Im fine.”
Contrast to 9-5-12 incident with both RNs Munoz and Arola indicating, “An
assessment is a mandatory portion of the treatment.” (See attached Exhibit (E)
already on file)

12
13
14
15

(ECF No. 9, p. 9.)

16

Claim 13:

17

In claim 13, Plaintiff alleges:

18

On 2-19-13 Plaintiff returned from (19) prison dialysis “C” yard Correctional
Lieutenant (Lt.) Lunez and Sgt. Lopez, informing Plaintiff that, “ill be going to
administrative segregation (Ad/Seg) for threatening at (19) prison dialysis,” which
Plaintiff begin to ask questions regarding false allegation circumvented around the
dialysis Sgt. who was working during mentioning of matters relevant herein, and
both defendants obviously orchestrated to retaliate against Plaintiff.

19
20
21
22

(ECF No. 9, p. 9.)

23

Claim 14:

24

In claim 14, Plaintiff alleges:

25

On 2-21-13 at (19) prison dialysis and two days after false allegation orchestrated
by defendants C.H.T. S. Moore, Lt. Lunez, and Sgt. Lopez. (19) Prison dialysis
Sgt. Hughes informed to Plaintiff that, “He hadn’t known anything occurred until
after Plaintiff left the (19) clinic.” Also, Sgt. Hughes agreed and basically
confided his knowledge of circumstances, and the healthcare captain is

26
27
28

6

1
2
3

investigating issues regarding retaliation. (See attached (CDCR) RVR 115 log
no: C-13-02-027 Exhibit C)
(ECF No. 9, p. 10.)

4

Claim 15:

5

In claim 15, Plaintiff alleges:

6

On 3-15-13 Plaintiff was found guilty by Senior Hearing Officer on implied
threat, not direct threats. As the CDC RVR 115 was written by defendant
C.H.T.S Moore, who falsified documents, and during the course of Plaintiff 115
Hearing, Senior Hearing Officer, stated, “He is aware of Plaintiff being
harassed/retaliation against.” And “He[’]s going to find me guilty of a lesser
offense.” (See attached Exhibit (O) already on file)

7
8
9
10

(ECF No. 9, p. 10.)

11

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, along with injunctive relief.

12

III.

13

As with his original complaint, Plaintiff’s amended complaint is in contravention of

14

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 18 and 20. Despite being provided with the relevant

15

pleading and legal standards, Plaintiff has been unable to cure these deficiencies. However, in an

16

abundance of caution, the Court will grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his complaint.

17

To assist Plaintiff, the Court again provides the applicable pleading and legal standards. Based

18

on these standards, Plaintiff should amend only those claims that he believes, in good faith, are

19

cognizable.

Deficiencies of Complaint

20

A. Pleading Requirements

21

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

22

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and

23

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

24

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause

25

of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

26

(citation omitted). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

27

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.

28
7

1

at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also

2

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–557; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

3

Plaintiff's complaint does not include a short and plain statement of his claims. Rather,

4

Plaintiff’s complaint is filled with conclusory, vague and confusing statements, which do not

5

provide specific factual information to permit the Court to determine if Plaintiff has stated a

6

plausible claim for relief against the individually named defendants. If Plaintiff elects to amend

7

his complaint, he must set forth specific factual allegations against each defendant in a clear and

8

concise manner.

9

2. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20

10

Plaintiff is raising numerous claims based on different events involving different

11

defendants between August 2012 and March 2013. Plaintiff may not bring unrelated claims

12

against unrelated parties in a single action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a), 20(a)(2); Owens v. Hinsley, 635

13

F.3d 950, 952 (7th Cir. 2011); George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff may

14

bring a claim against multiple defendants so long as (1) the claim arises out of the same

15

transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions and occurrences, and (2) there are commons

16

questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th

17

Cir.1997); Desert Empire Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America, 623 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th

18

Cir.1980). Only if the defendants are properly joined under Rule 20(a) will the Court review the

19

other claims to determine if they may be joined under Rule 18(a), which permits the joinder of

20

multiple claims against the same party.

21

Plaintiff may not attempt to circumvent joinder rules merely by claiming that defendants

22

at the same institution are retaliating against him. Plaintiff is alleging discrete events involving

23

alleged retaliation by various dialysis personnel and alleged retaliation by various correctional

24

officers. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall choose which claims he wishes to pursue in

25

this action. If Plaintiff does not do so and his amended complaint sets forth unrelated claims that

26

violate joinder rules, the Court will dismiss the claims it finds to be improperly joined.

27

///

28

///
8

1

B. Legal Standards

2

1. Retaliation

3

Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation consists of five

4

elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)

5

because of (3) that prisoner's protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate's

6

exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a

7

legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567 (9th Cir. 2005); accord

8

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269

9

(9th Cir.2009).

10

A plaintiff suing for retaliation under section 1983 must allege that “he was retaliated

11

against for exercising his constitutional rights and that the retaliatory action does not advance

12

legitimate penological goals, such as preserving institutional order and discipline.” Barnett v.

13

Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994). The plaintiff does not need to show actual inhibited or

14

suppressed speech, but that there was a chilling effect upon his speech. Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 569.

15

The burden is on the plaintiff to plead and prove the absence of any legitimate correctional goals

16

for the alleged conduct. Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995).

17

Plaintiff appears to assert claims of retaliation against various defendants. However, in

18

multiple instances, Plaintiff fails to establish that defendants took an adverse action against

19

Plaintiff because of any protected conduct or exercise of his constitutional rights. Rather,

20

Plaintiff suggests, through vague references, that certain defendants allegedly retaliated against

21

Plaintiff because of a relationship Plaintiff had with a Latina woman. Plaintiff also fails to allege

22

any chilling effect or, in some instances, the absence of any legitimate correctional goals for the

23

conduct.

24

2. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

25

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an

26

inmate must show “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d

27

1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50

28

L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show
9

1

(1) “a ‘serious medical need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner's condition could

2

result in further significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2)

3

“the defendant's response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096;

4

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

5

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and

6

fails to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir.

7

2010). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v.

8

Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from

9

which he could make an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must

10
11

make the inference. Farmer, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994).
Plaintiff appears to allege two separate incidents related to his medical needs. In the first

12

incident, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Jose Munoz and Fragino Arola terminated Plaintiff’s

13

dialysis treatment when Plaintiff refused to undergo an assessment. As Plaintiff declined to

14

undergo an assessment, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical

15

needs by termination of his dialysis treatment.

16

In the second incident, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants gave him Heparin on December

17

1, 2012, in violation of doctors’ orders. At best, Plaintiff has alleged medical malpractice, which

18

is not sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see

19

also Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995). Even gross negligence is

20

insufficient to establish deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v.

21

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990).

22

3. Grievance/Appeal Procedure

23

Plaintiff appears to bring a claim regarding review of his appeals. However, the prison

24

grievance procedure does not confer any substantive rights upon inmates and actions in

25

reviewing appeals cannot serve as a basis for liability under section 1983. Buckley v. Barlow,

26

997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993). Involvement in reviewing an inmate’s administrative appeal

27

does not necessarily demonstrate awareness of alleged violation. Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d

28

1076, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2014).
10

1

4. Use of Verbal Threats

2

To the extent Plaintiff alleges that certain defendants made threatening statements, such

3

allegations are not sufficient to state a cognizable section 1983 claim. Mere verbal harassment or

4

abuse, including the use of racial epithets, does not violate the Constitution and, thus, does not

5

give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136,

6

139 (9th Cir.1987). Threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Gaut v. Sunn,

7

810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir.1987).

8

5. False RVR/115 Report

9

Plaintiff appears to allege his rights were violated by a false disciplinary charge. An

10

inmate can state a cognizable claim arising from a false disciplinary report if the false report was

11

done in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional rights or if the inmate was not afforded

12

procedural due process in connection with the resulting disciplinary proceedings as provided in

13

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1874). See Hines v.

14

Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 267 (9th Cir.1997) (retaliation); Hanrahan v. Lane, 747 F.2d 1137, 1141

15

(7th Cir.1984) (finding that an allegation that a prison guard planted false evidence which

16

implicated an inmate in a disciplinary infraction failed to state a claim for which relief can be

17

granted where procedural due process protections are provided); Brown v. Leyva, 2009 WL

18

129879, *3 (E.D.Cal. Jan.20, 2009) (prisoner failed to state cognizable due process or retaliation

19

claim based on allegedly false charges and reports); Rodgers v. Reynaga, 2009 WL 62130, *2

20

(E.D.Cal. Jan.8, 2009) (inmate’s allegations that defendants conspired to fabricate a false

21

criminal offense that resulted in his re-housing in administrative segregation failed to state a

22

cognizable retaliation or due process claim).

23

Here, Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that the purportedly false disciplinary charge

24

was done in retaliation for the exercise of his constitutional rights. Further, Plaintiff does not

25

claim that he was denied any procedural due process protections. Accordingly, Plaintiff has

26

failed to state a cognizable claim based on the allegedly false disciplinary charge.

27
28
11

1

IV.

2

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8, 18 and 20 and fails

Conclusion and Order

3

to state a cognizable claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to cure the

4

identified deficiencies which Plaintiff believes, in good faith, are curable. Lopez v. Smith, 203

5

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

6

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what

7

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal,

8

556 U.S. at 678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations

9

must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S.

10
11

at 555 (citations omitted).
Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated

12

claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no

13

“buckshot” complaints).

14

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.

15

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended

16

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.”

17

Local Rule 220.

18

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

20

2.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

21

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

22
23

second amended complaint. Plaintiff’s amended complaint should not exceed 25 pages; and
4.

If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order,

24

this action will be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to state a claim.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 13, 2014

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
12