Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01002/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01002-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

AUDREY KING, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01002-MJS (PC)

ORDER STRIKING UNSIGNED FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT BUT 

GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED PLEADING WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS 

(ECF No. 16)

Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Complaint was dismissed for failure to 

state a claim. 

The First Amended Complaint is before the Court for screening. 

I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The in forma pauperis statutes provide that “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). A complaint must 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to 

relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7
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

conclusory statements, do not suffice,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, ----, 129 S.Ct. 

1937, 1949 (2009), citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and 

courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal–Mart Stores, 

Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, 

legal conclusion are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.

II. PLEADING STANDARD

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) 

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) 

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 

See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda Cnty., 811 F.2d 1243, 

1245 (9th Cir. 1987).

A plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the 

deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). This 

requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for 

relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949–50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969, 970

(9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility 

standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949–50.

III. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff’s amended pleading does not attribute a rights violation to any named 

Defendant. His original pleading named the following Defendants (1) Audrey King, 

Coalinga State Hospital (“CSH”) Executive Director, (2) Brandon Price, CSH Program 

Director, and (3) Cliff Allenby, CSH Director.

The amended pleading is difficult to understand. It appears that Plaintiff was 

assaulted by a fellow patient, and later assaulted by friends of the initial assailant. 

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 2 of 7
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

Plaintiff grieved the assaults. He should have been, but was not moved to a 

single room away from further threat.

The amended pleading does not demand any relief. The original pleading sought 

monetary damages. 

IV. DISCUSSION

The Fourteenth Amendment provides the standard for evaluating the 

constitutionally protected interests of individuals who have been involuntarily committed 

to a state facility. Rivera v. Rogers, 224 Fed.Appx. 148, 150–51 (3d Cir. 2007); see 

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 312 (1982). In determining whether the 

constitutional rights of an involuntarily committed individual have been violated, the 

court must balance the individual's liberty interests against the relevant state interests 

with deference shown to the judgment exercised by qualified professionals. Id., at 321-

22.

A. Procedural Deficiencies

The First Amended Complaint is procedurally deficient. It fails to name 

Defendants liable under the allegations, Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), fails to demand any relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3), and is unsigned, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 

The court is required to strike an unsigned pleading unless the omission is 

promptly corrected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). 

Because the First Amended Complaint is substantively deficient for reasons that

follow, the court will strike it with leave to amend. Plaintiff is advised any amended 

pleading must be complete in itself and may not incorporate allegations in prior 

pleadings. Local Rule 220.

B. Linking Defendants to Violations

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 3 of 7
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

A § 1983 plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated 

in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. There must be an actual 

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to 

have been suffered by the plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 

U.S. 658 (1978).

Plaintiff does not name the Defendants who allegedly violated his rights. He does 

not explain how unidentified Defendants participated in or directed or failed to respond 

to a known rights violation harming him. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 

1435, 1446–47 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.2d 1202, 1206–07 (9th Cir.

2011) (“[A] plaintiff may state a claim against a supervisor for deliberate indifference 

based upon the supervisor's knowledge of and acquiescence in unconstitutional 

conduct by his or her subordinates.”).

Plaintiff was previously advised of this deficiency. If he chooses to amend he 

must allege facts linking each named Defendant to a violation of his rights. 

C Eighth Amendment Claim

1. Failure to Protect

Plaintiff's right to constitutionally adequate conditions of confinement is protected 

by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 315. 

He is “entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than 

criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish,” but the Constitution 

requires only that courts ensure that professional judgment was exercised. Youngberg, 

457 U.S. at 321-22.

A determination whether Plaintiff's rights were violated requires “balancing of his 

liberty interests against the relevant state interests.” Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321. A 

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 4 of 7
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

“decision, if made by a professional, is presumptively valid; liability may be imposed 

only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from 

accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the 

person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id. at 322-

23. The professional judgment standard is an objective standard and it equates “to that 

required in ordinary tort cases for a finding of conscious indifference amounting to gross 

negligence.” Ammons v. Washington Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 648 F.3d 1020, 

1029 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Plaintiff’s allegations do not include facts sufficient for the court to analyze the 

claim under the above standards. Plaintiff does not explain the nature and extent any 

risk, who posed it, when and to what extend any Defendant with knowledge of the risk 

was able to but failed to respond, and how this caused harm to Plaintiff. 

While Plaintiff has a liberty interest in safe conditions of confinement, Youngberg, 

457 U.S. at 315, and care that is professionally acceptable. Id. at 321, his allegations 

are not sufficient to state a claim under applicable standards.

Plaintiff was previously advised of this deficiency. 

If Plaintiff chooses to amend, he should allege facts demonstrating how named 

Defendants were indifferent to his safety and thereby caused him harm. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678.

D. Fourteenth Amendment Claims

1. Administrative Grievance

Civil detainees are entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protections. Jones v. 

Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Civil status means civil status, with all the 

Fourteenth Amendment rights that accompany it.”). However, there is no federal 

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 5 of 7
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

constitutional right to an institutional grievance procedure or injunctive relief thereon. 

Merryfield v. Jordan, 431 Fed.Appx. 743, 750 (10th Cir. 2011). Plaintiff may not claim a 

federal violation arising solely from his administrative complaint. Id.

Even if Plaintiff had such a right, he fails to allege facts showing denial of 

administrative process due him. Rather he complains of the outcome of the process. 

Plaintiff has no right to a certain outcome. See Wise v. Washington State Department of 

Corrections, 244 Fed.Appx. 106, 108 (9th Cir. 2007), (no due process rights regarding 

the proper handling of grievances).

Plaintiff does not and cannot state a due process claim arising from the 

grievance process.

Plaintiff was previously advised that amendment of this claim would be futile.

Further leave to amend is denied. 

V. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER

The First Amended Complaint shall be stricken because it is unsigned, does not 

name Defendants and does not state desired relief. It also fails to state any cognizable 

claim. Plaintiff was previously advised of the substantive deficiencies in his claims.

The Court will provide Plaintiff with one final opportunity to file a duly signed 

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this Order. Noll v. 

Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).

If Plaintiff opts to amend, his amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a), but must state what each named Defendant did that led to the deprivation of 

Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78, consistent with 

this Order. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 6 of 7
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

7

Further, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims 

in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. 

Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office is directed to STRIKE Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint (ECF No. 16) from the docket, 

2. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff (1) a blank civil rights amended 

complaint form and (2) a copy of his First Amended Complaint filed 

October 16, 2014, 

3. Plaintiff shall file a duly signed amended complaint within thirty (30) days 

from service of this Order, and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this Order, 

the undersigned will recommend the action be dismissed, with prejudice, 

for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 27, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01002-MJS Document 17 Filed 10/27/14 Page 7 of 7