Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00260/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00260-10/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL O’NEAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0260 LKK JFM P

vs.

WHITE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 8, 2007, plaintiff’s third amended

complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was given thirty days to file a fourth amended complaint.

After receiving an extension of time, plaintiff has now filed a fourth amended complaint.

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). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in

law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 5
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

2

1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim,

however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.

41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, at

1965. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson

v. Pardus, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007) (quoting Bell, slip op. at 7-8, in turn quoting Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id., and construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

(1974). 

Plaintiff names eight defendants in the fourth amended complaint, including

defendants identified as J. Pearson, and Shankland. There are no charging allegations in the

fourth amended complaint against these individuals. For that reason, the court will not order

service of process on said defendants.

Plaintiff also names C. L. Twyman and Powers as a defendant, and alleges that

said defendants violated plaintiff’s rights because “he’s the supervisors [sic] of everyone that 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

violated my rights concerning me being sexually abused as well as Powers.” (Fourth Amended

Complaint, filed August 20, 2007, at 5.) 

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

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 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 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 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). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s inclusion of defendants Twyman and Powers appears grounded in nothing

more than a theory of respondeat superior. Accordingly, the court will not order service of

process on these two defendants. 

The fourth amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against the

remaining named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail

on the merits of his claims against these four defendants.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: White; Yarber; M. Cry;

and Teresa A. Schwartz.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four USM-285 forms, one

summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the fourth amended complaint filed August 20,

2007.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1

above; and 

d. Five copies of the endorsed fourth amended complaint filed August 20,

2007. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: September 13, 2007.

12

onea0260.4am

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 5
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRELL O’NEAL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0260 LKK JFM P

vs.

WHITE, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Fourth Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00260-LKK -JFM Document 33 Filed 09/14/07 Page 5 of 5