1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:25-cv-1837 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

15 REHABILITATION, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This 20 proceeding was referred to this Court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the Court will 26 direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account 27 and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly 28 payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 1 These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 2 the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 5 I. SCREENING STANDARDS 6 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 7 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 8 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 9 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 10 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 11 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 12 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 13 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 14 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 15 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 16 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 17 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 18 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 19 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 20 1227. 21 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 22 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 23 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 24 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 25 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 26 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 27 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 28 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 1 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 2 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 3 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 4 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 5 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 6 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 7 II. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 8 Plaintiff asks this Court to review all discovery related to Thomas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & 9 Rehab., No. 34-2022-00328693-CU-PO-GDS (Sacramento Co., Cal.), the class action concerning 10 a data breach discovered in January 2022, and in which plaintiff is a class member. (ECF No. 1 11 at 3, 5.) Plaintiff admits that he received notice that he is entitled to a cash payment from the 12 class action settlement, and now seeks the relief to which he is entitled. (Id. at 5.) 13 Plaintiff appended a document styled, “Notice(s) and Motion(s),” in which plaintiff states 14 that “as factual allegations of the first amend[ed] complaint,” plaintiff claimed that upon his 15 arrival at Pelican Bay State Prison on April 8, 2020, the classification committee improperly 16 imposed family visiting restrictions. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff filed a grievance contesting the 17 visitation restrictions, which was granted, and the restrictions were lifted on July 31, 2023, but 18 plaintiff claims he never received a settlement for the related violations, and now seeks relief. 19 (Id.) 20 As relief, plaintiff seeks a cash payment, tax-free, a pardon, pre-paid VISA and debit gift 21 cards, unlimited messaging, movies, music and news, unlimited canteen and quarterly packages, 22 money damages, and an attorney for civil and criminal court actions. (Id. at 8-10.) 23 III. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable federal civil rights claim. Plaintiff is advised that this 25 Court does not have jurisdiction over the class action filed in the Sacramento County Superior 26 Court, and therefore has no authority to review discovery obtained in that class action. Any relief 27 must be sought in that state court action, Thomas, No. 34-2022-00328693-CU-PO-GDS, not this 28 federal court. 1 Although plaintiff alleges he sustained violations of his constitutional rights, he sets forth 2 no facts to support cognizable claims. Given the manner in which plaintiff raised the family 3 visiting issue, it is unclear whether plaintiff intended to pursue his family visiting claim in this 4 action, or whether he is pursuing that claim in another court. This Court is unable to construe his 5 family visiting allegations as a claim in this action because plaintiff failed to identify a named 6 defendant responsible for imposing the alleged wrongful visiting restrictions. Further, such claim 7 is not properly filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 8 Because plaintiff is housed in Pelican Bay State Prison, and the alleged family visiting 9 deprivation took place at Pelican Bay, such claims are properly filed in the United States District 10 Court for the Northern District of California. 11 Because plaintiff fails to state a cognizable civil rights claim, the complaint must be 12 dismissed. However, in an abundance of caution, the Court grants plaintiff leave to file an 13 amended complaint. 14 IV. LEAVE TO AMEND 15 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 16 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g., 17 West, 487 U.S. at 48. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 18 defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s 20 actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 21 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 22 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 23 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 24 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 25 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 26 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 27 v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 28 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 1 | omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 2 || function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 3 || and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 4] V. CONCLUSION 5 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 7 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 8 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 9 || § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 10 || Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 11 | herewith. 12 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 13 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 14 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 15 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 16 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 17 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 18 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 19 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 20 | Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 21 || this action. 22 23 | Dated: October 10, 2025 A aA 24 Ly {nn spe

CHI SOO KIM

25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 /V/isel1837.14n

27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:25-cv-1837 CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

14 CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 19 filed on ______________ (date). 20 21 Amended Complaint 22 (Check this box if submitting an Amended Complaint) 23 DATED: ________________________________ 24 Plaintiff 25 26 27 28