Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00907/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00907-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN DANIEL ZARCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAMEIDA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 907 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Juan Daniel Zarco(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. SCREENING STANDARD

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The allegations in the Complaint are largely incoherent. It appears that Plaintiff’s

Complaint stems from an interaction he had with Defendant Alameida wherein he complained

about an injury he had incurred days later. Plaintiff names several Defendants, however, given

that the Complaint is composed basically of a narrative, does not make specific allegations

against each named Defendant (approximately 14 named in the Caption, including a John Doe),

and is unclear, the Court cannot determine whether the Complaint alleges any facts that would

support a cognizable claim for relief. Further, Plaintiff has attached over fifty (50) pages of

exhibits in support of his Complaint. However, the Court will not review the exhibits to

determine whether they aid in discerning what the claims for relief are. It is Plaintiff’s

responsibility to allege each claim for relief, provide a short statement of facts supporting that

claim and link each Defendant to a particular act or omission giving rise to the claim. 

C. DISCUSSION

1. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, the plaintiff must link each

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

plaintiff’s federal rights. Plaintiff’s general allegation that a Defendant violated a certain right is

insufficient. 

2. Rule 8(a)

Further, a plaintiff’s complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader

need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46

(1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately

rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

In light of this rule requirement, Plaintiff must make the factual statement supporting

each claim against each Defendant short and plain. \

3. Exhibits & Evidence

It is inappropriate to attach exhibits to a complaint. See Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Further, the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence. Originals or

copies of evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) should not be

submitted until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a

motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the court). At this point, the

submission of evidence is premature as the Plaintiff is only required to state a prima facie claim

for relief. Should Plaintiff Amend the Complaint to make his claims more clear, Plaintiff should

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

refrain from attaching evidence and exhibits. As noted above, the Complaint must be complete

in itself and should not refer to attachments or other pleadings. 

4. Exhaustion Requirement

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, “[n]o action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by

a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner,

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). "All 'available' remedies must now be exhausted; those remedies need

not meet federal standards, nor must they be 'plain, speedy, and effective." ' Porter, 534 U.S. at

524 (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 739 n. 5). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney

v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). Thus, plaintiff may not exhaust while the

suit is pending. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

The Court notes here that Plaintiff did not indicate whether he did or did not exhaust his

administrative remedies. Instead, Plaintiff states “California Department of Corrections Remedy

It’s (Civil Death) Access it is at the whim of transgressors.” Plaintiff is informed that regardless

of his opinion as to the exhaustion process, the law, as stated above, requires that Plaintiff

exhaust his administrative remedies. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is alleging any claims that

are unexhausted, he may wish to omit them from his Complaint as they will likely be dismissed

at a later stage of the proceedings for failure to exhaust. 

D. CONCLUSION

 The Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file an Amended Complaint curing the

deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. th

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, there can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423,

U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 th

F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. th

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The [ ] Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN THIRTY

(30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00907-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 10/02/06 Page 6 of 6