Jones v. Montrief
- Charles Breyer
- 3:26-cv-05699
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jones v. Montrief, Judge Breyer dismissed a prisoner's civil rights complaint but gave him 28 days to file a revised complaint with specific factual allegations.
Incarcerated individuals who file civil rights lawsuits in federal court, particularly those representing themselves, who must understand the requirement to plead specific facts showing how each named defendant personally caused the alleged violation of their rights.
What happened
In Rayon Jones v. Cynthia Montrief et al., a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison filed a lawsuit under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983) against multiple prison officials at three California state prisons, claiming those officials coordinated to have him sexually assaulted and infected with HIV in retaliation for filing lawsuits in federal court.
The court found that the current complaint — the First Amended Complaint — did not include enough specific facts to show how each named prison official actually caused a violation of the plaintiff's federal rights. The court also granted the plaintiff's request to add one more defendant to the case.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend, meaning the plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 28 days that corrects these deficiencies. The court warned that no further requests to amend will be accepted, that the new complaint must be simple and concise, and that any claims or defendants not included in the Second Amended Complaint will not be considered.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Montrief · No. 3:26-cv-05699
- Charles Breyer
- Sept. 3, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Rayon Jones, a prisoner at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) and described by the court as a frequent litigant in federal court, filed a pro se (self-represented) First Amended Complaint (FAC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights. Jones alleged that prison officials at three California state prisons — SVSP, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD), and Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) — communicated with each other via email to arrange for him to be raped by other inmates and to be given HIV, in retaliation for his filing civil lawsuits in federal court.
Parties Named
The FAC named a total of ten defendants: three officials at SVSP (Cynthia Montrief, Clark Johnson, and Arlene Hernandez), six officials at RJD (identified as Coward, King, Keena Chavez, Andre Lewis, A. Garcia, and G. Gonzalez), and one official at MCSP (identified as Pierce). Jones also filed a motion (ECF No. 10) seeking leave to add one additional defendant, S. Tomlinson, at SVSP.
Court's Rulings
Motion to Amend The court granted Jones's motion for leave to amend to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), but stated that no further motions to amend would be entertained.
Dismissal of the First Amended Complaint The court dismissed the FAC with leave to amend. Under Ninth Circuit precedent cited by the court — Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) — a plaintiff bringing a § 1983 claim must allege specific facts demonstrating how each named defendant actually and proximately (directly) caused the deprivation of the plaintiff's federal rights. The court found the FAC insufficient in this regard.
Requirements for the Second Amended Complaint
The court instructed Jones to: - Allege specific facts supporting all claims of wrongdoing; - Show how every named prison official actually and proximately caused the alleged rights deprivation; - Keep the pleading simple and concise; - Include the case caption, civil case number, and the words "SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first page; - File the SAC within 28 days of the order.
The court also warned, citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), that the SAC will supersede (replace) all prior complaints, meaning claims and defendants not included in the SAC will not be considered. Failure to file a proper SAC within the 28-day window could result in dismissal.
Administrative Note
The court instructed the clerk to terminate the motion appearing as ECF No. 10 on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.