(PC) Kavik v. Saucedo et al
Filing
9
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 9/8/2021 GRANTING plaintiff's #2 request to proceed ifp and DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff shall pay the $350.00 filing fee in accordance with the concurrent order. (Yin, K)
Case 2:21-cv-01401-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERHAN KAVIK,
12
13
14
No. 2:21-cv-1401 CKD P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
E. SAUCEDO, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18
1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
19
636(b)(1).
20
Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a
21
declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted.
22
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§
23
1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the
24
initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court.
25
Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
26
month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by
27
the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account
28
exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
1
Case 2:21-cv-01401-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 5
1
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
2
governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
3
court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
4
“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
5
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
6
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
7
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
8
Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
9
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
10
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
11
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
12
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
13
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than
14
“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
15
of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,
16
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
17
statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim
18
upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
19
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
20
the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
21
at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
22
the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and
23
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
24
U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
25
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon
26
which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The
27
court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
28
/////
2
Case 2:21-cv-01401-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 5
1
If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must point to facts demonstrating a
2
deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).
3
Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant
4
is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative
5
link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode,
6
423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in
7
civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
8
1982).
9
In his complaint, plaintiff sues the California Department of Corrections and
10
Rehabilitation for damages based upon a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
11
Fourteenth Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar to suits brought
12
by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency consents to such
13
suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) (per
14
curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). The State of California
15
has not consented to suit with respect to claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment for
16
damages.
17
Plaintiff alleges he has been subjected to harmful conditions of confinement. Plaintiff is
18
informed that in order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Eighth
19
Amendment, he must allege facts indicating he has suffered sufficiently serious injury as a result
20
of a prison official’s deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v.
21
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994).
22
In order to state a cognizable claim for violation of due process during things such
23
prisoner disciplinary proceedings, plaintiff must allege facts which suggest that he was deprived
24
of a protected liberty interest. Such liberty interests are “generally limited to freedom from
25
restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to
26
protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, [citations omitted], nonetheless imposes
27
atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
28
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). If good conduct sentence credit was revoked as part
3
Case 2:21-cv-01401-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 5
1
of prisoner disciplinary proceedings, and still has not been restored, plaintiff’s sole federal
2
remedy with respect to the disciplinary proceedings finding is a writ of habeas corpus which
3
plaintiff would seek under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
4
Also, to the extent plaintiff seeks damages, plaintiff is informed he cannot proceed on a §1983
5
claim for damages if the claim implies the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Heck v.
6
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994).
7
Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
8
make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
9
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a
10
general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
11
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no
12
longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
13
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
14
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
15
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.
16
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees
17
shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California
18
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.
19
3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.
20
4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended
21
complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil
22
Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket
23
number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
4
Case 2:21-cv-01401-CKD Document 9 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 5
1
amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action
2
be dismissed.
3
Dated: September 8, 2021
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
kavi1401.14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?