United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
KYNTREL TREVYONE JACKSON, also known as SINISTER DAEVAYASNAHAM GOD, Plaintiff,
HEIDI ROMERO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Kyntrel Trevyone Jackson, also known as Sinister
Daevayasnaham God, filed on August 14, 2019 a Complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1.
Plaintiff then filed on August 21, 2019 an Amended Complaint
which the Court considers Plaintiff's operative
complaint. Dkt. 6. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Dkt. 6) under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A, the Court declines to serve the Amended
Complaint because Plaintiff has not demonstrated how each of
the Defendants personally harmed him. However, the Court
provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by
September 30, 2019 to cure the deficiencies identified
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, an inmate at Stafford Creek
Corrections Center, alleges that his constitutional rights
were violated when he was incarcerated in the Clallam Bay
Corrections Center. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
retaliated against him by deciding not to release him from an
Intensive Management Unit into the general population after
he filed a federal bankruptcy claim against prison psychology
associate Heidi Romero. Dkt. 1, p. 2, Dkt. 6, p. 2. Plaintiff
alleges that after filing this claim, Ms. Romero, Mr. Patrick
Brady, and Ms. Barbara Bannan acted to intimidate him and
witnesses who could support his claim. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10, Dkt.
6, pp. 9-10.
argues that on June 6, 2019, Leona Irving, Mr. Brady, Ms.
Bannan, and Ms. Romero, “with input from” Douglas
Wayne Carr, John Coulter Dittman, Timothy Lang, met and
decided that Plaintiff was fixated on Ms. Romero and that his
behavior towards her constituted a threat to the secure
operation of the prison. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10, Dkt. 6, p. 10.
Plaintiff contends that the findings of this meeting were
“submitted to” Vance Adamire. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10,
Dkt. 6, p. 10. Plaintiff contends that he was unaware of this
meeting and did not have an opportunity to dispute the
decision, and that as a result he was placed in isolation for
38 days. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10, Dkt. 6, p. 10.
contends that on July 19th, 2019, Ryan Pfaff, Casey Kaech,
Timothy Thrasher, Steven Sinclair, Kevin Bowen, D. Feist, L.
Fletcher, J. Smith, A. Deshev, and J. Uglick, “with
input from” Douglas Wayne Carr, John Coulter Dittman,
and Timothy Lang decided that he posed a threat to the prison
based on his claims. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10. Dkt. 6, p. 10.
alleges that these actions constitute a violation of his
First Amendment right against retaliation, his Sixth
Amendment right to a hearing, and his Fourteenth Amendment
due process rights. Dkt. 1, p. 14 Dkt. 6, p. 14. Plaintiff
also alleges violation of his rights under Washington State
law. Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Dkt. 1-1,
p. 63, Dkt. 6, p. 58.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must
allege facts showing how a defendant caused or personally
participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint.
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988);
Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp, 637
F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). A person subjects another to
a deprivation of a constitutional right when committing an
affirmative act, participating in another's affirmative
act, or omitting to perform an act which is legally required.
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Sweeping conclusory allegations against an official are
insufficient to state a claim for relief. Leer, 844
F.2d at 633.
Plaintiff does not explain how each Defendant violated his
constitutional rights. He has properly described the personal
participation of Defendants Heidi Romero, Patrick Brady,
Barbara Bannan, Vance Adamire, Ryan Pfaff, Casey Kaech,
Timothy Thrasher, Steven Sinclair, Kevin Bowen, D. Feist, L.
Fletcher, J. Smith, A. Deshev, and J. Uglick.
Plaintiff has not specifically explained what the remaining
named Defendants actually did to violate Plaintiff's
constitutional rights. For instance, Plaintiff makes the
conclusory allegation that the decisions leading to the
deprivation of his constitutional rights were made
“with input from” Douglas Wayne Carr, John
Coulter Dittman, Timothy Lang, but does not specify what
these individuals did to violate his rights. Dkt. 1-1, p. 10.
Dkt. 6, p. 10. Plaintiff also lists several other individuals
in his claim, including C. Stone, S. Lohenis, J. McCollum,
Patty Willoughby, Kelli J. McKinney, Clinton Gouthier, John
Thompson, and J. Scott. Dkt. 1-1, pp. 5-6, Dkt. 6, pp. 5-6.
Plaintiff has not explained how any of these individuals
violated his constitutional rights. Therefore, the Court
declines to serve Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint that
alleges claims only against defendants who have allegedly
violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff must explain
how each named defendant personally participated in the
alleged constitutional violations.
Instructions to Plaintiff and the Clerk
the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve
the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff intends
to pursue a § 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he
must file an amended complaint and within the amended
complaint, he must write a short, plain statement telling the
Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was
violated; (2) the name of the person who violated the right;
(3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do;
(4) how the action or inaction of the individual is connected
to the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights;
and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of
the individual's conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode,
423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original Amended Complaint, and not as a supplement. An
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.
Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th
Cir. 1997) overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v.
Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
Therefore, the amended complaint ...