Brent Adler v. Sigston et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING Complaint, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, Pursuant to Rule 8(A) 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/31/14: Thirty-Day Deadline to File Amended Complaint Not to Exceed Twenty-Five Pages. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BRENT ADLER,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

K. SIGSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Case No. 1:13-cv-01868-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND, PURSUANT TO RULE
8(A)
(Doc. 1)
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE
AMENDED COMPLAINT NOT TO
EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE PAGES

_____________________________________/
16
17 I.

Compliance with Rule 8(a)

18

Plaintiff Brent Adler, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights

19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 18, 2013. The events at issue took place when
20 Plaintiff was incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California.
21 Plaintiff’s fifty page complaint violates Rule 8(a), which calls for “a short and plain statement of
22 the claim,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), supported with “simple, concise, and direct” allegations, Fed. R.
23 Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
24

Plaintiff is pursuing claims against seventeen named defendants and five Doe defendants,

25 and his constitutional claims arise out of retaliation and denial of access to the courts. The Court
26 will provide Plaintiff with the following applicable legal standards to assist him in setting forth
27 those allegations which are relevant and which link each defendant to actions or omissions which
28 violated Plaintiff’s rights.

1 II.

Legal Standards

2

A.

3

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in the

Causal Connection Between Defendants and Violations Required

4 violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948-49 (2009);
5 Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of
6 Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.
7 2002). Liability may not be imposed under a theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist
8 some causal connection between the conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue.
9 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 107410 75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc);
11 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012).
12

B.

13

Allegations of retaliation against a prisoner’s First Amendment rights to speech or to

Retaliation

14 petition the government may support a section 1983 claim. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090,
15 1104 (9th Cir. 2011); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Valandingham
16 v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995).
17 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five basic
18 elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate (2)
19 because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the inmate’s
20 exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate
21 correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005); accord Watison v.
22 Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012); Silva, 658 at 1104; Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d
23 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009).
24

C.

25

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

Access to the Courts

26 518 U.S. 343, 346, 116 S.Ct. 2174 (1996); Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir.
27 2011); Phillips v. Hust, 588 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). However, to state a viable claim for
28 relief, Plaintiff must show that he suffered an actual injury, which requires “actual prejudice to
2

1 contemplated or existing litigation.” Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th
2 Cir. 2011) (citing Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 132
3 S.Ct. 1823 (2012); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, 122 S.Ct. 2179 (2002); Lewis, 518
4 U.S. at 351; Phillips, 588 F.3d at 655.
5 III.

Order

6

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, pursuant to Rule 8;

8

2.

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

9 amended complaint not to exceed twenty-five pages; and
10

3.

The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action, without

11 prejudice.
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 31, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3