The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 KOHEN DIALLO E. UHURU, No. 2:23-CV-0200-DAD-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
14 WALTERS, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No.
19 24.
20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
22 § 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was
23 initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel.
24 Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or
25 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can
26 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
27 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
28 / / /
1 Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a
2 “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.
3 Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See
4 McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)).
5 These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim
6 and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996).
7 Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific
8 defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this
9 standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law
10 when the allegations are vague and conclusory.
11
12 I. BACKGROUND
13 A. Procedural History
14 In addressing Plaintiff’s original pro se complaint naming 22 individual
15 defendants, the Court identified various claims which appeared cognizable and others which did
16 not. See ECF No. 12. Specifically, the Court determined as follows:
17 1. Plaintiff’s religious practice claims regarding the denial of prayer
materials and a kosher meals card are cognizable.
18
2. Plaintiff’s religious practice claim regarding single-cell worship is not
19 cognizable.
20 3. Plaintiff also presents cognizable retaliation claims.
21 4. Plaintiff’s equal protection claims are not cognizable because Plaintiff
does not distinguish how he was treated from how similarly situated
22 individuals were treated.
23 5. Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claim is not cognizable because
he does not show how he was harmed other than that he was
24 uncomfortable with prison staff’s choices.
25 6. Plaintiff’s medical needs claim is not cognizable because he does not
plead Defendants acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of
26 inflicting harm.
27 7. Plaintiff’s ADA claim is not cognizable because he does not plead a
disability connected to the alleged harm.
28
1 8. Plaintiff fails to establish causal links for Defendants Forsterer, Banks,
Santos, Stacy, Gates, Spaulding, Rogers, Alwazani, Bordewick, and
2 Reynolds sufficient to establish claims against them.
3 ECF No. 12, pg. 4.
4 Plaintiff was advised of the defects in his complaint and the applicable legal
5 standards, in particular the rule requiring that Plaintiff allege sufficient facts to establish a causal
6 link between each named individual defendant and a claimed violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
7 or statutory rights. See id. at 5-16. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file a first amended
8 complaint. See id. at 16-17.
9 Plaintiff timely filed his first amended complaint and, on June 27, 2025, the Court
10 issued an order addressing its sufficiency in light of the Court’s prior orders. See ECF No. 21.
11 The Court summarized Plaintiff’s allegations and concluded as follows:
12 The Court finds that, despite being advised of the
requirement to allege facts to establish a causal link between each named
13 defendant and each claimed violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or
statutory rights, the first amended complaint fails to do so.
14
* * *
15
Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint does not present
16 specific facts regarding each of the named defendants’ causal role in the
alleged constitutional or statutory deprivations. Instead, Plaintiff refers to
17 the defendants collectively as “all defendants” without identifying the
specific defendants’ involvement with the incident. While Plaintiff’s
18 original complaint appeared to state some cognizable claims, as explained
in the Court’s prior order and outlined above, the first amended complaint
19 superseded the original complaint, see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1262 (9th Cir. 1992), and the Court cannot look to a prior pleading to
20 make Plaintiff’s current pleading complete, see Local Rule 220. As
currently pleaded, the first amended complaint represents a step
21 backwards in Plaintiff’s efforts to present cognizable claims. Plaintiff will
be provided one final opportunity to file a further amended complaint
22 consistent with the standards outlined here, and in the Court’s prior
screening order.
23
ECF No. 21, pgs. 5-6.
24
25 Plaintiff timely filed the currently operative second amended complaint on
26 September 2, 2025. See ECF No. 24.
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations
2 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Walkers, a sergeant at Mule Creek
3 State Prison (MCSP); (2) Patrick Covello, the warden of MCSP; (3) Laura Forsterer, the Chief of
4 Mental Health at MCSP; (4) M. Banks, a lieutenant at MSCP; (5) Dawn Santos, a litigation
5 coordinator at MSCP; (6) Lance Eshelman, the Community Resource Manager at MCSP; (7) J.
6 Sunderland, a correctional officer at MCSP; (8) E. Gibson, a custody case worker at MCSP; (9)
7 B. Stacy, the Chief Deputy Warden at MCSP; (10) S. Gates, Policy and Risk Management
8 Services for the California Correctional Health Care Services, Health Care Correspondence and
9 Appeals Branch; (11) David Smiley, the Chief Executive Officer at MCSP; (12) Holly Parks, the
10 Chief Psychologist at MCSP; (13) Stephanie Johnson, a Senior Psychologist Supervisor at
11 MCSP; (14) Spaulding, a sergeant at MCSP; (15) K. Rogers, a captain at MCSP; (16) E.
12 Alwazani, a lieutenant at MCSP; (17) M. Delgadilo, a custody case worker at MCSP; (18) Annie
13 Bailey, a clinical psychologist at MCSP; (19) Jeffrey Macomber, current or former director of the
14 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); (20) Kathleen Allison, current
15 or former director of CDCR; and (21) Gena Jones, current or former director of CDCR. See ECF
16 No. 24, pgs. 6-8.
17 Plaintiff states that he is a “priest” and uses pronouns such as “They,” “Thou,” and
18 “Theirs.” Id. at 3. He states that he is the “Founder, Spiritual Leader, Professor, priest, and
19 Facilitator for ALL participants, Prophets, Teachers, and Students of the NUBIAN HEBREW
20 ISRAELITES Religious Faith and Practice. . . .” Id. As with the first amended complaint,
21 Plaintiff states facts relating to his religious practice, religious diet, retaliation, and various
22 conditions of confinement claims. See generally id.
23
24 II. DISCUSSION
25 The Court finds that, while Plaintiff has alleged various facts suggesting
26 cognizable claims, as he did in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
27 continues to be bereft of specific facts as to each of the many named defendants to establish a
28 causal link between the named defendants and a specific legal theory of liability.
1 As Plaintiff has been previously advised, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
2 the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of the named defendants
3 and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v.
4 Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional
5 right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
6 affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
7 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
8 Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights
9 violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
10 Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in
11 the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
12 Here, the second amended complaint either does not allege facts to link specific
13 defendants to specific conduct, or where defendants are named, they are named in a list of many
14 defendants such that no particular defendant is adequately on notice of the factual basis of
15 Plaintiff’s claim. Given that Plaintiff has been previously advised of the appropriate pleading
16 standard and continues to fail to meet that standard, the Court will recommend that this action be
17 dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
18 / / /
19 / / /
20 / / /
21 / / /
22 / / /
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Il. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
3 || with prejudice for failure to state a claim.
4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
5 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections
7 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.
8 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v.
9 | Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
10
11 | Dated: July 9, 2026 Ss..c0_,
DENNIS M. COTA
13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28