# CDCR > District Court, E.D. California · October 8, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210875 ## Case - **Full name:** John W. Williams v. CDCR, et al. - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** October 8, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210875 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN W. WILLIAMS, No. 2:25-cv-2026 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action. This proceeding 18 was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. A review of court records 20 reveals that it has been determined that plaintiff has “struck out” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 21 1915(g) and that conclusion was reached before this action was filed. Williams v. Patterson, 22 2:22-cv-1083 DAD CKD P, ECF Nos. 9 & 13. However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a plaintiff 23 can still proceed in forma pauperis if the plaintiff alleges he is under imminent danger of serious 24 physical injury. The court finds that plaintiff’s allegations concerning his conditions of 25 confinement at Mule Creek State Prison satisfy the “three strikes” exception.1 Therefore, 26 plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to 27 1 Plaintiff alleges he suffers from health and mobility issues which staff at Mule Creek State 28 Prison have either refused to or are ill equipped to adequately address. 1 pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By 2 separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee 3 from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be 4 obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to 5 plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to 6 the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing 7 fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 8 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 9 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 10 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 11 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 12 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 13 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 14 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The 15 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 16 In his complaint, plaintiff asserts he was subjected to harmful conditions of confinement 17 which commenced when he was transferred to Mule Creek State Prison on July 10, 2025. 18 Plaintiff’s complaint is signed July 21, 2025. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) “[n]o action shall be 19 brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal 20 law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such 21 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” It does not appear possible that plaintiff 22 exhausted available administrative remedies before bringing this action with respect to any claim 23 arising after his transfer to Mule Creek State Prison and plaintiff fails to point to anything 24 reasonably suggesting he did. If available administrative remedies were not exhausted before 25 commencement of this action, plaintiff could voluntarily dismiss this action and commence 26 another if or when available administrative remedies are exhausted. 27 Plaintiff is also informed that that the Eleventh Amendment serves as a jurisdictional bar 28 to suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless the state or the agency 1 consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 2 (1978) (per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). The State of 3 California has not consented to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 4 More generally, plaintiff is informed that under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials 5 have a duty to protect prisoners from harmful conditions of confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 6 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). A prison official may be held liable for subjecting an inmate to 7 harmful conditions of confinement if an inmate suffers a sufficiently serious injury, and the prison 8 official was deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm. Id. at 834, 837. The relevant inquiry is 9 whether prison officials, “acting with deliberate indifference, exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently 10 substantial risk of serious damage to his future health.” Id. at 834 (internal quotation omitted). 11 Also, if plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 12 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 13 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms 14 how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless 15 there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed 16 deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 17 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 18 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 19 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 20 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 21 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 22 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 23 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 25 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 26 shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 27 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith. 28 ///// 1 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 2 4. Plaintiff □□ granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 3 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 4 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 5 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 6 || amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 7 || be dismissed. 8 | Dated: October 8, 2025 / hice ANKE) flo ° CAROLYN K DELANEY? 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 will2026.s0 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11210875. Public record. Not legal advice.