Cervantes v. Burciaga

Background

Raul Cervantes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Cervantes submitted several filings containing a wide variety of claims, but the court found it unclear what claims he intended to bring.

His most recent filing appeared to concern the percentage of money being taken from his prison trust account for court filings. He named a correctional officer and a deputy attorney general who had been involved in an earlier lawsuit.

Legal standard

The court conducted the preliminary screening required for prisoner complaints seeking relief from a governmental entity or government officer. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual information to make a claim plausible, rather than relying on labels or conclusions.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law and action by a person acting under state law.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Cervantes needed to provide more information and a clearer statement of his allegations. It directed him to identify specific defendants and explain how each defendant violated his constitutional rights. If he continued to seek relief against the deputy attorney general, he had to explain why absolute immunity did not apply and how the claim concerning his prison trust account presented a federal claim.

The court also directed Cervantes to describe where the alleged events occurred. It stated that if the events occurred while he was incarcerated at California State Prison Los Angeles, the case would be transferred.

Disposition

The court denied Cervantes’s motion for an extension of time. It dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Cervantes had 28 days from the filing date of the order to submit an amended complaint using the case caption and number and labeling the first page “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” The amended complaint had to include all claims he wished to pursue because it would replace the original complaint. The court stated that failure to amend within the deadline would result in dismissal of the case. It also reminded Cervantes that he had to prosecute the case, keep the court informed of address changes, and comply with court orders.