Carter v. McKinnon et al
ORDERED: Carter may respond to this Order on or before January 28, 2022. Carters motion for screening (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Mailed to Carter. Signed by Magistrate Judge John Johnston on 1/7/2022. (HEG)
Case 6:21-cv-00049-BMM-JTJ Document 12 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
Cause No. CV 21-49-H-BMM-JTJ
BRYCESON McKINNON; JACOB
DAVISON; JEFFREY McNABB; and
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff Clayton Carter filed this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violation of his civil rights. On September 14, 2021, he filed an
Because Carter is a prisoner and is proceeding in forma pauperis, see Order
(Doc. 5), the Court must review the pleading to determine whether it fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
1915A(a), (b)(1). A federal court must liberally construe pleadings filed by
unrepresented prisoners and give notice of deficiencies that may be cured by
amendment. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); Watison
v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1117–18 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Pruitt v. Cheney, 963
F.2d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 1991)).
Case 6:21-cv-00049-BMM-JTJ Document 12 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3
The Court has reviewed all the allegations in the amended complaint. 1 In
one respect, Carter fails to state a claim but may do so by clarifying his allegations
in a supplement.
Carter asserts that Defendant Warden Salmonsen “knowingly or purposely
allow[ed] Carter to be shipped to a regional prison in retaliation for filing a
P.R.E.A. complaint and federal lawsuit.” Am. Compl. (Doc. 9) at 18 ¶ 26.
To state a claim against Salmonsen, Carter must allege facts showing that
Salmonsen caused or contributed to causing the transfer. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A
person participates in causing a constitutional violation “if he does an affirmative
act, participates in another’s affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is
legally required to do that causes” or contributes to causing the violation. Lacey v.
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy,
588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[A]llowing” a transfer does not meet the
If Carter believes Warden Salmonsen knew Carter had been selected for
transfer to Crossroads, knew that he was selected because of his filing of a PREA
complaint or a lawsuit, and decided not to prevent the transfer from happening, he
must allege facts supporting that claim. Or if Carter means that Salmonsen
The Court has also reviewed the original complaint. The amended complaint does not
appear to omit anything included in the original.
Case 6:21-cv-00049-BMM-JTJ Document 12 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3
retaliated against him for filing a PREA claim or lawsuit by doing something to
cause the transfer, he must allege facts supporting both the motivation and the
action. If Carter means only that Salmonsen knew or should have known that any
transfer of Carter would be retaliatory, then he does not have a claim against
Carter may respond by filing a supplement. He need not file a complete
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Carter may respond to this Order on or before January 28, 2022.
2. Carter’s motion for screening (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
DATED this 7th day of January, 2022.
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?