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 GERALD LEE MILLER, JR., No. 2:25-CV-2694-DC-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 JEU MOON, 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 original complaint, ECF No. 1.
19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was
22 initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel.
23 Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or
24 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can
25 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
26 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
27 / / /
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. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
13 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Jeu Moon, M.D.; (2) Nathaniel
14 Matolo, M.D.; (3) S. Keenan, R.N.; (4) D. Behrman, the Chief Medical Executive at California
15 State Prison – Folsom (Folsom); (5) San Juaquin General Hospital (SJGH); (6) Johnson, a
16 correctional officer at Folsom; (7) Van Weggen, a correctional officer at Folsom; and (8) Lofton,
17 a correctional officer at Folsom. See ECF No. 1, pgs. 1-7.
18 Plaintiff states that he was diagnosed with a ventral umbilical hernia on February
19 2, 2024, and that he was scheduled for surgery at SJGH. See id. at 7. Surgery was performed on
20 August 21, 2024, by Defendant Matolo. See id. Plaintiff states that, immediately after surgery,
21 he was transported back to Folsom and that, while riding in the transport van in an upright
22 position, his sutures may have torn open. See id. Plaintiff states that he was not provided any
23 pain medication and experienced pain during the transport. See id. Upon arrival back at Folsom,
24 Plaintiff received a post-surgery examination during which he complained of the pain and
25 discomfort he experienced during transport. See id.
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 The following day – August 22, 2024 – Plaintiff complained that he had been
2 denied pain medication for the pain he was suffering following surgery and transport back to
3 Folsom. See id. at 8. Later that day Plaintiff was seen again for a second post-surgery follow-up.
4 See id. Plaintiff was seen by a prison nurse to whom Plaintiff complained of continuing pain in
5 the area of the surgery as well as bleeding. See id. The nurse ordered antibiotics and Tylenol and
6 referred Plaintiff to be seen by Defendant Moon. See id.
7 Plaintiff alleges that his condition became worse between August 22 and
8 September 5, 2024. See id. According to Plaintiff, the nurse ordered an additional course of
9 antibiotics on September 5, 2024. See id. Plaintiff was examined by Defendant Moon the
10 following day via telemedicine. See id. During the examination, Defendant Moon confirmed that
11 Plaintiff was experiencing discharge from the surgical area and continued Plaintiff on antibiotics.
12 See id. at 8-9.
13 Plaintiff was transported back to SJGH on September 20, 2024, for examination by
14 Defendant Matolo. See id. at 9. At the examination Plaintiff continued to complain of severe
15 pain in the surgical area. See id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Matolo acknowledged the
16 area was swollen, infected, and not healing properly. See id. Plaintiff states that Defendant
17 Matolo treated the area by applying dry dressing. See id. Plaintiff was not provided with any
18 pain medication. See id. At the end of the examination, Defendant Matolo recommended that
19 Plaintiff continue with the antibiotics and have the surgical area changed daily with dry dressing.
20 See id.
21 Plaintiff was examined on September 21, 2024, by Defendant Moon upon
22 Plaintiff’s return to Folsom after the follow-up with Defendant Matolo at SJGH the previous day.
23 See id. Plaintiff again complained of pain, which he states was increasing. See id. According to
24 Plaintiff, Defendant Moon never inquired as to the level of Plaintiff’s pain. See id.
25 Plaintiff next saw Defendant Moon on September 24, 2024, for another follow-up.
26 See id. at 10. Plaintiff states that, despite worsening pain and evidence of infection shown by a
27 discharge of thick greenish fluid, Defendant Moon failed to provide any medication for Plaintiff’s
28 pain. See id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant Moon told Plaintiff there was nothing wrong with him
1 and that there was nothing more he (Moon) could do. See id.
2 Plaintiff states that he was seen by a prison nurse on October 7, 2024, at which
3 time he continued to have visible areas which were infected. See id.
4 On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff underwent a CT scan at a mobile facility at Folsom
5 to determine the source of complication following surgery. See id. According to Plaintiff, the
6 procedure was unsuccessful due to the scanning nurse’s inability to administer an IV contrast.
7 See id. at 10-11. Plaintiff states that the procedure was rescheduled for a later date at SJGH. See
8 id. at 11. Plaintiff was seen again by Defendant Moon later that same day. See id. According to
9 Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff’s complaints of pain and spitting up blood, Defendant Moon simply
10 told Plaintiff he would be fine and not to worry. See id. Plaintiff states that Defendant Moon did
11 not provide any pain medication or otherwise treat the infected surgical area. See id.
12 Plaintiff next states that he was seen again on October 18, 2024, by Defendant
13 Matolo at SJGH. See id. At this examination, Plaintiff complained of increasing levels of pain
14 and told Defendant Matolo that he had developed an infection around the surgical area. See id.
15 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Matolo told Plaintiff he would be fine and not to worry. See id.
16 Plaintiff states that moments later Defendant Matolo told Plaintiff he would no longer be able to
17 treat him. See id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant Matolo informed Plaintiff that he had been
18 directed by Defendant Moon at Folsom to discontinue treatment and to not conduct any further
19 diagnostic testing because “being sick was a part of the punishment for coming to prison.” Id. at
20 12. Plaintiff states that Defendant Moon instructed Defendant Matolo to return Plaintiff to
21 Folsom. See id.
22 Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a health care grievance against Defendants
23 Moon, Matolo, and SJGH on October 26, 2024. See id. at 14-15.
24 Plaintiff states that he was next interviewed by Defendant Moon on November 18,
25 2024, following Plaintiff’s filing of health care services request due to stomach pain. See id. at
26 12. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Moon told him at this interview that he was unable to
27 provide any additional treatment. See id. Plaintiff adds that Defendant Moon denied Plaintiff’s
28 request to renew pain medication even though the surgical area was visibly swollen and
1 discolored. See id.
2 Plaintiff submitted another health care services request on December 2, 2024, for
3 stomach pain and infection. See id. Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Moon the following day.
4 See id. at 13. Plaintiff again complained of continued pain since the surgery months prior. See
5 id. According to Plaintiff, Defendant Moon did not approve Plaintiff’s request to be sent back to
6 SJGH and instead ordered oral treatment with Bactrim 800 mg to address infection. See id.
7 Plaintiff states that Defendant Moon did not order any blood tests or other services to address the
8 cause of Plaintiff’s stomach pain. See id.
9 Plaintiff was seen again by Defendant Moon on January 15, 2025, at which time
10 Defendant Moon directly observed the surgical area and source of infection, pain, and skin
11 discoloration. See id. Plaintiff states that, nonetheless, Defendant Moon did not provide any
12 follow-up treatment or additional referrals. See id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Moon
13 did not provide any pain medication. See id.
14 Plaintiff next states that the CT scan which had been rescheduled from October 16,
15 2024, was conducted on either March 14, 2025, or May 2, 2025 – the allegations are inconsistent
16 in this regard. See id. Following this CT scan, Plaintiff was seen on May 9, 2025, by his new
17 primary care provider at Folsom, Dr. Reddy. See id. According to Plaintiff, the CT scan showed
18 a large anterior abdominal wall defect, and he was informed by Dr. Reddy that additional surgery
19 would be needed. See id. Plaintiff states that he was transported back to SJGH on June 12, 2025,
20 for additional examination. See id. at 14.
21 Plaintiff claims that, following submission of his health care grievance on October
22 26, 2024, he experienced longer delays between medical visits which resulted in additional
23 problems such as bladder leakages and inability to gain weight. See id. at 15. Plaintiff again
24 states that he was told by Defendant Matolo that Defendant Moon had instructed that Plaintiff not
25 be provided any additional treatment at the hospital and not to run any further diagnostic tests
26 because being sick was part of the punishment of being in prison. See id. Plaintiff suggests that
27 this was due to prior litigation initiated by Plaintiff concerning his health care. See id.
28 / / /
1 Next, Plaintiff generally alleges that it is a custom and practice at Folsom “to lie,
2 destroy medical records, cover up medical issues in order to deny medical treatment.” Id. at 16.
3 Plaintiff adds that officials will switch medical files with other inmates and use “all kinds of
4 underhanded tricks” to deny or delay medical treatment. Id.
5 Next, Plaintiff claims that during his efforts to pursue administrative grievances
6 regarding the health care issues outlined above, Defendants Lofton, Van Weggen, and Johnson
7 took adverse action against him by falsifying rules violation reports in order to subject Plaintiff to
8 unwarranted disciplinary sanctions. See id. at 16-17. Plaintiff adds that false evidence was
9 presented during the disciplinary hearing to support the version of events put forward by
10 Defendant Lofton, Van Weggen, and Johnson. See id.
11 According to Plaintiff, he was attempting to attend a self-help group on August 15,
12 2024, when he was stopped by Defendant Lofton who asked to see Plaintiff’s identification card,
13 which Plaintiff provided. See id. at 17. Plaintiff states that he was then instructed by Defendant
14 Lofton to remain where he was because Plaintiff was being disrespectful by filing a 602 [inmate
15 grievance]. See id. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lofton then activated an alarm and he was
16 placed in handcuffs by responding custody staff, escorted to the custody complex, strip searched,
17 and detained for two hours based on an incident fabricated by Defendant Lofton. See id. Plaintiff
18 states that Defendant Lofton issued a false rules violation report alleging Plaintiff had engaged in
19 disrespect to staff with a potential for violence. See id. Ultimately, Plaintiff was found not guilty
20 of the charged rules violation following a hearing on September 18, 2024. See id. at 18.
21 On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an inmate appeal requesting removal
22 of all information within his file in connection with the inmate grievance. See id. at 18. Plaintiff
23 additionally requested that Defendant Van Weggen refrain from committing acts of retaliation
24 stemming from the incident with Defendant Lofton. See id. This appeal was denied. See id.
25 Plaintiff refiled his appeal, which was transferred to a reviewing agency. See id. Plaintiff was
26 interviewed by the agency and described Defendant Van Weggen’s alleged “retaliatory” behavior
27 as preventing Plaintiff from attending his college courses between September 22, 2024, to
28 October 17, 2024. See id. at 19.
1 On October 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an inmate appeal alleging Defendant Moon
2 was “deliberately indifferent” to his complaints of pain and medical needs associated with the
3 umbilical hernia surgery. See id. at 20. On January 7, 2025, Plaintiff’s appeal was denied without
4 addressing his medical issues or pain. See id. at 21. On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff resubmitted an
5 inmate appeal to the California Correctional Health Care Services Division, which was denied.
6 See id. Plaintiff asserts he was deprived of his eighth amendment rights by being subjected to
7 “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, including psychological and emotional distress”
8 which has caused interference with his daily activities. See id.
9 Plaintiff asserts that he has complied with the California Tort Claim Act and
10 further asserts negligence under California Civil Code § 1714 against Defendants Matolo, Moon,
11 Keenan, Behrman, and SJGH. See id. at 22.
12 Next, Plaintiff alleges that on February 20, 2025, Defendant Johnson filed a false
13 mental health referral report in retaliation to Plaintiff’s use of the administrative appeals process.
14 See id. at 19. Plaintiff asserts this report was to be used against him at his next parole board
15 hearing. See id. Plaintiff states the report included false statements indicating Plaintiff engaged in
16 irregular behavior and talked during mandatory standing count. See id. Plaintiff alleges that
17 Defendant Johnson falsely used her coworker, Correctional Officer A. Rupert, as a reporting
18 officer to corroborate her claim. See id. Plaintiff asserts that when asked, Rupert denied writing
19 the report. See id. Plaintiff alleges that he overheard Defendant Johnson and Rupert discussing
20 how Defendant Johson hates “inmates who file inmate appeals.” Id.
21 Next, Plaintiff alleges that his rights within his Federal Civil Settlement regarding
22 medical claims were violated, causing him harm when the Second District Court of Appeal used
23 Plaintiff, his prior court orders, and prior case files for training of new officers at Folsom State
24 Prison. See id. at 28-29.
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Plaintiff claims a violation of his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
2 and asserts the Second District Court of Appeal acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it
3 denied a hearing on his resentencing after Plaintiff was resentenced on September 5, in either
4 2023 or 2024.1 See id. at 28. Plaintiff alleges he was deprived of his liberty when the Second
5 District Court of Appeal attempted to remove facts of his resentencing from the record, forcing
6 him to “relitigate an issue that was already granted…” Id.
7 On October 4, 2025, upon Plaintiff attempting to litigate full resentencing, Plaintiff
8 asserts the court made an error when it stated he had resentencing to remove prior prison time
9 from his sentence. See id. at 29. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the California Supreme Court
10 which denied review. See id.
11 Next, Plaintiff alleges issues with state and federal court jurisdiction regarding his
12 sentencing and “receivership.” See id. at 30. Plaintiff asserts the Second District Court of Appeal
13 has “illegally refuse[d]” to acknowledge his resentencing, which has violated plaintiff’s due
14 process rights. See id.
15
16 II. DISCUSSION
17 The Court finds that Plaintiff has stated the following cognizable federal claims
18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
19 (1) an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Moon arising from Plaintiff’s follow-up visit on September 24,
20 2024, at which time Defendant Moon allegedly failed to provide any
medication for Plaintiff’s pain despite numerous complaints of pain and
21 that Defendant Moon told Plaintiff nothing was wrong.
22 (2) an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Moon arising from Plaintiff’s follow-up visit on October 16,
23 2024, at which time Defendant Moon told Plaintiff not to worry about
anything despite worsening pain and spitting up blood.
24
(3) an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim based on
25 Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Moon instructed Defendant Matolo to
discontinue Plaintiff’s treatment.
26
27
28 1 It is unclear which year the sentencing took place as Plaintiff uses both dates.
1 (4) an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Moon arising from Plaintiff’s follow-up visit on November 18,
2 2024, at which time Plaintiff informed Defendant Moon of stomach pain
follow surgery and Defendant Moon allegedly told Plaintiff there was
3 nothing more he could do.
4 (5) an Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference claim against
Defendant Moon arising from a follow-up visit on January 15, 2025, at
5 which time Defendant moon observed infection at the surgical site and
skin discoloration but provided no treatment.
6
(6) a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Moon arising
7 from Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Moon instructed Defendant
Matolo not to provide additional treatment due to Plaintiff’s prior
8 litigation.
9 (7) a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Lofton based
on Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant Lofton issued a false rules
10 violation report on August 15, 2024, because Plaintiff had been
disrespectful by filing inmate grievances.
11
(8) a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Johnson.
12
13 Plaintiff has not, however, stated cognizable claims against the remaining
14 defendants. As to Defendant Matolo, the physician at SJGH who performed surgery on Plaintiff,
15 Plaintiff has not alleged facts to show that Defendant Matolo was deliberately indifferent.2 To the
16 extent Plaintiff alleges denial of adequate medical care related to sutures reopening on the van
17 ride back from the hospital following surgery, Plaintiff has not linked such a claim to any named
18 defendant who alleged failed to provide medical care. Similarly, to the extent Plaintiff asserts a
19 denial of adequate medical care at the August 22, 2024, follow-up visit at the prison, Plaintiff has
20 not indicated who he saw at that time or otherwise linked the clam to a named defendant.
21 Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Moon examined Plaintiff on September 6, 2024, at a
22 telemedicine appointment at which time Defendant Moon confirmed that Plaintiff was
23 experiencing discharge from the surgical area and continued Plaintiff on antibiotics. This
24 allegation fails to state a claim under § 1983 because the facts indicate that Plaintiff was provided
25 treatment by Defendant Moon.3 Plaintiff also alleges that he was seen by Defendant Matolo at
26
27 2 Plaintiff’s allegations of professional negligence against Defendant Matolo are
cognizable as a state law claim over which this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
28 3 Again, this claim may state a claim for professional negligence.
1 SJGH on September 20, 2024, for a follow-up examination at which time Defendant Matolo
2 conducted an examination, applied dressing, and continued Plaintiff on antibiotics. These
3 allegations fail to state a claim because the facts alleged show that Plaintiff was provided
4 treatment and Plaintiff does not allege such treatment was substandard. Plaintiff alleges that
5 Defendants Lofton, Van Weggen, and Johnson retaliated against him by falsifying rules violations
6 reports. This claim is deficient because Plaintiff does not allege that these defendants were aware
7 of Plaintiff’s protected activity or that such activity motivated the allegedly retaliatory actions.
8 Finally, though Plaintiff outlines a series of facts relating to some sort of actions in in the state
9 courts, these allegations are not linked to any named defendant.
10 Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend consistent with the following
11 legal principles relating to establishing a causal link, medical care, and retaliation.
12 A. Causal Link
13 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
14 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See
15 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
16 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
17 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
18 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
19 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
20 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
21 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
22 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
23 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
24 B. Medical Care
25 The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which the
26 prisoner is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel
27 and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993); Farmer v. Brennan,
28 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). The Eighth Amendment “. . . embodies broad and idealistic concepts
1 of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102
2 (1976). Conditions of confinement may, however, be harsh and restrictive. See Rhodes v.
3 Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Nonetheless, prison officials must provide prisoners with
4 “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy,
5 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when
6 two requirements are met: (1) objectively, the official’s act or omission must be so serious such
7 that it results in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities; and (2)
8 subjectively, the prison official must have acted unnecessarily and wantonly for the purpose of
9 inflicting harm. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. Thus, to violate the Eighth Amendment, a prison
10 official must have a “sufficiently culpable mind.” See id.
11 Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury, or risks of serious
12 injury or illness, gives rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105;
13 see also Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837. This applies to physical as well as dental and mental health
14 needs. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982). An injury or illness is
15 sufficiently serious if the failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further significant
16 injury or the “. . . unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d
17 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Doty v. County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 (9th Cir. 1994).
18 Factors indicating seriousness are: (1) whether a reasonable doctor would think that the condition
19 is worthy of comment; (2) whether the condition significantly impacts the prisoner’s daily
20 activities; and (3) whether the condition is chronic and accompanied by substantial pain. See
21 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).
22 The requirement of deliberate indifference is less stringent in medical needs cases
23 than in other Eighth Amendment contexts because the responsibility to provide inmates with
24 medical care does not generally conflict with competing penological concerns. See McGuckin,
25 974 F.2d at 1060. Thus, deference need not be given to the judgment of prison officials as to
26 decisions concerning medical needs. See Hunt v. Dental Dep’t, 865 F.2d 198, 200 (9th Cir.
27 1989). The complete denial of medical attention may constitute deliberate indifference. See
28 Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1111 (9th Cir. 1986). Delay in providing medical
1 treatment, or interference with medical treatment, may also constitute deliberate indifference. See
2 Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131. Where delay is alleged, however, the prisoner must also demonstrate
3 that the delay led to further injury. See McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1060.
4 Negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not, however, give
5 rise to a claim under the Eighth Amendment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106. Moreover, a
6 difference of opinion between the prisoner and medical providers concerning the appropriate
7 course of treatment does not generally give rise to an Eighth Amendment claim. See Jackson v.
8 McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). However, a claim involving alternate courses of
9 treatment may succeed where the plaintiff shows: (1) the chosen course of treatment was
10 medically unacceptable under the circumstances; and (2) the alternative treatment was chosen in
11 conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d
12 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2004).
13 C. Retaliation
14 In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, the plaintiff must
15 establish that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right, and that the retaliatory
16 action was not related to a legitimate penological purpose, such as preserving institutional
17 security. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In meeting
18 this standard, the prisoner must demonstrate a specific link between the alleged retaliation and the
19 exercise of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995);
20 Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner must also
21 show that the exercise of First Amendment rights was chilled, though not necessarily silenced, by
22 the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000), see also
23 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the prisoner plaintiff must
24 establish the following in order to state a claim for retaliation: (1) prison officials took adverse
25 action against the inmate; (2) the adverse action was taken because the inmate engaged in
26 protected conduct; (3) the adverse action chilled the inmate’s First Amendment rights; and (4) the
27 adverse action did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568.
28 / / /
1 I. CONCLUSION
2 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
3 | amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
4 } 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an
5 || amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
6 || 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the
7 || prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An
8 | amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
9 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the
10 || conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights. See
11 | Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
12 || each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or connection between
13 || each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167
14 | (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
15 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended
16 || complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and
17 || recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such
18 | further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.
19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file an amended
20 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
21
22 || Dated: July 20, 2026 SS Co
23 DENNIS M. COTA
24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
13