Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06147/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06147-0/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

SUPERB O. NWANDU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

 CORRECTIONS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6147 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND (Doc. 1) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Superb O. Nwandu (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on August 5, 2004, naming the California Department of Corrections, the Warden of

Wasco State Prison, and Correctional Officer Figueroa as Defendants. Plaintiff is seeking

monetary damages and transfer to another facility. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 8
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

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

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

Plaintiff alleges that the floor in front of his cell was constantly flooded due to the

negligence of staff in shutting off the water hydrant between his and an adjacent cell. Plaintiff

states he slipped on the floor and urged staff to wedge a blanket underneath his cell door to block

the water but Officer Figueroa felt the blanket was an eye sore and ordered it removed. 

Plaintiff next alleges that he requested to be transferred to another facility and that the

Warden include consideration of transfer to a facility where Plaintiff felt he would get “proper

therapeutic treatment and evaluation” but his request was granted as he was sent to Chuckawalla

Valley State Prison and received only basic care. 

Plaintiff states that he was appointed to a job with pay but that an “unscrupulous

correctional officer removed his pay status and assigned it to another inmate worker of his race”

stating that the new person performed the job better since Plaintiff was only doing “sedatory [sic]

job” as recommended by the facility Doctor. Plaintiff grieved this issue but was reassigned to a

job pulling grass for 7 hours a day which aggravated his condition. 

Plaintiff states he has filed several inmate grievances to remove excessive disciplinary

infractions based on ADA claims only to be denied. Plaintiff states that he has been refused

proper medical evaluation by facility Medical doctors which includes transfer to an adequate

medical institution. 

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 8
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

C. ANALYSIS

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

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, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

2. 11th Amendment 

Plaintiff names the California Department of Corrections as a Defendant. Plaintiff may

not sustain an action against a state agency. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts

from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley

Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted); see also Seminole Tribe of Fla.

v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy,

Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir.

1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the

state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep’t

of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brook, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of Prisons was a state agency

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 8
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

entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College Dist.,

861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Because the California Department of Corrections is a state agency, it is entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit and Plaintiff’s allegations against it must be dismissed

2. Supervisory Liability

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the Warden of Wasco State Prison as Defendant. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their

employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a

supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must

be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v.

Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim

for relief under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some

facts that would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the

alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation

of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v.

Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts must be

alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit,

507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts indicating that the Warden personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Hansen v. Black at 646. For this reason, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief against

defendants under section 1983. 

4. Eighth Amendment

A prisoner’s claim of inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and unusual

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 4 of 8
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

punishment unless the mistreatment rises to the level of “deliberate indifference to serious

medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The “deliberate indifference”

standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged deprivation must be, in

objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must act with a

“sufficiently culpable state of mind,” which entails more than mere negligence, but less than

conduct undertaken for the very purpose of causing harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 837. 

A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official “knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. 

In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a

prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his medical needs must be

substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this

cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing

Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06. “[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or

treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the

Eighth Amendment. Medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely

because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Anderson v.

County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995); McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1050

(9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds, WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136

(9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Even gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. See Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir.

1990). 

Here, Plaintiff only makes a passing reference to the fact that he is being refused proper

medical care. Plaintiff does not link a named Defendant to an act or omission giving rise to a

constitutional violation. Thus, the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. 

It is further unclear from the Complaint where the alleged inadequate care occurred. A

civil suit concerning events that occurred at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison must be raised in a

Complaint filed in the Central District of California. Thus, to the extent any of Plaintiff’s

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 5 of 8
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

 In Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), the Supreme Court abandoned earlier case law which had held

that states created protectable liberty interests by way of mandatory language in prison regulations. Id. at 481-84. 

Instead, the Court adopted an approach in which the existence of a liberty interest is determined by focusing on the

nature of the deprivation. Id. In doing so, the Court held that liberty interests created by prison regulations are

limited to freedom from restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. 

2

 “Section 1983 . . . creates a cause of action for violations of the federal Constitution and laws.” Sweaney

v. Ada County, Idaho, 119 F.3d 1385, 1391 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted). “To the extent that the

violation of a state law amounts to the deprivation of a state-created interest that reaches beyond that guaranteed by

the federal Constitution, Section 1983 offers no redress.” Id.

6

allegations concern incidents that occurred while Plaintiff was confined at Chuckawalla, they

will be dismissed. 

5. Job Loss

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to

state a cause of action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish

the existence of a liberty or property interest for which the protection is sought. 

Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in his prison job1, Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S.

472, 484 (1995), and Plaintiff does not have a property interest in his prison job. See Vignolo v.

Miller, 120 F.3d 1075, 1077 (9th Cir. 1997); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir.

1985). Because Plaintiff has neither a liberty interest nor a property interest in his prison job,

Plaintiff is not entitled to any procedural due process protections in conjunction with his

removal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations fail to give rise to a cognizable claim for relief

under section 1983 for violation of the Due Process Clause, or for any other constitutional

violation.2

6. Negligence

A public employee is liable for injury to a prisoner “proximately caused by his negligent

or wrongful act or omission.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 844.6(d) (West 2001). “To establish

negligence, a party must prove the following: (a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of

such legal duty; (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.” Hair v.

State, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2nd 871, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (citations omitted).

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 6 of 8
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

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Figueroa was negligent by failing to order repair of

a faulty water hose. (Complaint at 4.) However, a violation of state tort law, such as negligence,

is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under § 1983. To state a claim under § 1983, there

must be a deprivation of federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S.

693 (1976). Although the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims,

Plaintiff must first have a cognizable claim for relief under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Here, however, Plaintiff states no cognizable claim for relief under federal law. Thus, the Court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claim. 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file a first 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 (9th Cir. 

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 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588

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

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 (9th Cir. 

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. 

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 7 of 8
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

8

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: November 28, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06147-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 11/28/05 Page 8 of 8