Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06237/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-06237-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed 9/25/15*

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JIM WILLIAMSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

This federal civil rights action was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

prisoner. The operative complaint (Docket No. 50) is now before the Court for review under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the reasons stated herein, the complaint is DISMISSED with

leave to file an amended complaint on or before November 2, 2015. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

Case 3:12-cv-06237-RS Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 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). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that his jailors at Pelican Bay State Prison and their supervisors at the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) violated his

constitutional rights by placing him in an administrative segregation unit (“ASU”) during

three prison hunger strikes, one in September 2011, the second in October 2011, and the third

in July 2013. (Plaintiff also alleges that in October 2011, defendants violated his rights

during a visit to an eye clinic.) Only the claims relating to the September 2011 hunger strike

shall proceed in this action. All claims relating to the October 2011 and July 2013 incidents

are DISMISSED without prejudice. If plaintiff wishes to raise these now-dismissed claims,

Case 3:12-cv-06237-RS Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3

he must file them in separate civil rights actions. 

Plaintiff continues to name as defendants many persons who occupy supervisory

positions at Pelican Bay and the CDCR. The Court instructs plaintiff that he should consider

the difficulties in stating claims against such persons. So far, he has been unable to do so. 

He is reminded that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a

supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor

“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them.” Id. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity

where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such

allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their

subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1948–52 (2009). 

Plaintiff is encouraged to consider the following. “A person deprives another ‘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 [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and

responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have

caused a constitutional deprivation. Id. Proper defendants would include the specific Pelican

Bay correctional officers who directly ordered his placement in ASU, those persons who

actually implemented such orders, and those who failed to respond to his grievances about

his confinement. 

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint

on or before November 2, 2015. The amended complaint must address all the deficiencies

listed above, and include the caption and civil case number used in this order (12-6237 RS

Case 3:12-cv-06237-RS Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

4

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended

complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff must include in his first

amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to

sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Any claims not raised in

the amended complaint will be deemed waived. Plaintiff may not incorporate material from

the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff. Plaintiff

may raise only those claims related to the September 2011 hunger strike. Any other

claims will be summarily dismissed. 

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this 

action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

His motion to resume discovery (Docket No. 55) is DENIED without prejudice. 

Plaintiff may refile this motion when he files his amended complaint. The Clerk shall

terminate Docket No. 55. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-06237-RS Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 4