Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05929/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05929-5/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

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

BILL LOCKYER, et. al.

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5929 REC SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 18 )

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

George Hamilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of California. The case was transferred and received in this Court on July 6,

2004. This Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on March 30, 2005. Plaintiff

filed an Amended Complaint on October 7, 2005. (Doc. 18). As in the original Complaint,

Plaintiff again names Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and the Personnel of the Department of

Justice DNA and Forensic Identification Data Base and Data Bank as well as Does 1-100 as

Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 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

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). 

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 a violation of his civil rights for the involuntary taking of his DNA

pursuant to the California Penal Code. 

1. Personnel of the Department of Justice DNA and Forensic Identification

Database and Databank 

As stated in the Court’s prior Order, the civil rights act protects from violations of the

federal constitution by “persons.” The Personnel Department of Justice, DNA and Forensic

Identification Database and Databank are not “persons” within the meaning of Section 1983. 

Thus, Plaintiff may not proceed in this action naming an organization as a Defendant. 

2. Attorney General Bill Lockyer

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts from

hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state and bars damages actions against state

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 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

officials in their official capacity. See, Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab, 131 F.3d 836,

839 (9 Cir. 1997.); Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 859 (9 Cir. 1995). Accordingly, th th

Plaintiff may not sustain an action for damages against defendant Lockyer in his official capacity. 

Plaintiff was informed of this previously yet he continues to attempt to sue Defendant Lockyer in

his official capacity. Plaintiff’s repeated disregard of Court instruction may result in a

recommendation that the action be dismissed as such claim is clearly not cognizable in a civil

rights action. 

3. Does 1 through 100

Although plaintiff names Does 1 through 100 as Defendants, Plaintiff does not link any of

the Doe Defendants to an act or omission giving rise to the alleged constitutional violations. 

Plaintiff may not state generally that “Doe Defendants 1-100" collectively did or did not do a

specific act. Plaintiff must allege facts concerning each of the 100 Doe Defendants that gives

rise to a constitutional violation. Plaintiff was informed of this previously but still chooses to

name 100 Doe Defendants without sufficient facts linking them to a constitutional violation.

Accordingly, the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against any of the named Doe

Defendants. 

4. Rule 8(a)

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 this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to put any of

the named Doe Defendants on notice as to which of his actions violated plaintiff’s rights under

the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff is forewarned that a repeated failure to comply with Rule 8(a)

warrants a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 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

5. 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.

In this case, despite the Court’s prior Order dismissing with leave to amend, Plaintiff has

listed thirteen (13) separate causes of action but does not link any of the named Defendants to

any particular acts giving rise to those claims for relief. Further, the Complaint consists of forty

(40) pages of narrative most of which also do not link any particular Defendants to any act or

omission giving rise to a constitutional claim for relief. Given Plaintiff’s complete and utter

disregard for this Court’s prior Order dismissing with leave to amend which informed him of the

deficiencies of his Complaint, Plaintiff continues to name Bill Lockyer and an office in the

Department of Justice as Defendants. Further, Plaintiff names 100 Doe Defendants but does not

link one of them to acts or omissions as is required for this case to proceed. The Court will not

expend its scarce resources combing through the Complaint to try to determine where Plaintiff

might state a claim for relief when Plaintiff has refused to name proper Defendants in the action. 

The Court will afford Plaintiff one further opportunity to amend his Complaint. However,

should Plaintiff continue to name improper Defendants, fail to link any of the named Defendants

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 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

to acts or omissions or fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Court will recommend dismissal of the action. 

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 Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he

wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second 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. 1980). The Second Amended Complaint must specifically state how each th

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); th

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 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 “SECOND 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 Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

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

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 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

a. File a Second 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 a Second 

Amended Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary

dismiss the case. See, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).

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 1, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05929-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/02/06 Page 6 of 6