Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01604/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01604-0/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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604dwlta 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FERDINAND REYNOLDS, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-1604 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Director of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and the Warden at Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff has

been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. Plaintiff filed a

separate document entitled “amended ground two” on March 29, 2006. The original

complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend in order for Plaintiff to include both of

his claims in an amended complaint.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

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

**Original filed 10/6/06**

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604dwlta 2

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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). 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 act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844

F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). Sweeping

conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific facts

as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

To state a claim a plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee

safeguarding the interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697

(1976). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging one claim alleging that fellow inmates are

preparing Rule Violation Reports at Salinas Valley State Prison concerning other inmates. 

Plaintiff then filed an “amended ground two” alleging a separate claim regarding prison

disciplinary hearings. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course at any time before

a responsive pleading is served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Federal Rule of Civil

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604dwlta 3

Procedure 15(a) is to be applied liberally in favor of amendments and, in general, leave

shall be freely given when justice so requires. See Janicki Logging Co. v. Mateer, 42

F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994); cf. id. (attempt to amend complaint requiring amendment

of scheduling order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 must be based upon good cause). 

Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS the instant complaint in order for Plaintiff to

include both of his claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff shall file an amended

complaint on the Court’s complaint form, enclosed with this order, within thirty days of

the date of this order as set forth below. 

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s claims against the Director of the CDCR and

Warden Evans fail to set forth sufficient facts showing liability on the part of these

Defendants because Plaintiff does not allege the specific actions of each Defendant, nor

any resulting harm to him. The Court notes that there is no respondeat superior liability

under section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions

or omissions of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of

personal participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). A supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal

involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection

between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v.

County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth specific allegations as to each Defendant demonstrating how they

were involved in the alleged constitutional violation in his amended complaint. 

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting his claim against each Defendant separately

in his amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each Defendant. 

Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he has, describe what each Defendant did or

failed to do, and describe how each Defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. 

Plaintiff must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each individual

Defendant. He should not refer to the Defendants as a group, i.e., “the defendants;”

rather, he should identify each involved Defendant by name and link each of them to a

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604dwlta 4

specific claim by explaining what each Defendant did or failed to do that caused a

violation of his constitutional rights. 

Therefore the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days of the date this order is filed, to include both of his claims and allege

sufficient facts to support his claims against the named Defendants.

 CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend, as

indicated above, within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (06-1604 JF

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

complaint completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the

claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original

complaint by reference. Plaintiff must include all documentation and supporting

information regarding his claims with the amended complaint. Failure to amend within

the designated time will result in the Court proceeding with review of the original

complaint.

 2. 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________ JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

10/6/06

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.06\Reynolds604dwlta 5

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Ferdinand Reynolds

D-11772

Salinas Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 1050

Soledad, CA 93960-1050

Case 5:06-cv-01604-JF Document 7 Filed 10/06/06 Page 5 of 5