Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00388-0/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

SEMAJ DEWAYNE SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TILLY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00388 DLB PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Semaj Dewayne Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

March 11, 2015.

1

 He names Principal Tilly, Teacher Willard, Teacher Brione, Vice Principal K. 

Freed, DDP Teacher Turkey, DDP Teacher Silva, and Vice Principal R. Rollins as Defendants. 

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). 

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on April 6, 2015.

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 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

“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 must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 

is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff’s allegations must link the actions or 

omissions of each named defendant to a violation of his rights; there is no respondeat superior 

liability under section 1983. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 

1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim 

for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

B. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at California Institution for Men in Chino, California. He 

was housed at Corcoran State Prison when and where the events giving rise to this action took place. 

Plaintiff alleges the following. Plaintiff states he suffers from a mental disability as well as a 

physical disability. He states he has a difficult time remembering and comprehending things. This 

affects his reading and writing skills. This learning disability has caused him to be in special 

education all of his life. Plaintiff states that Defendants are fully aware of his disabilities. Plaintiff 

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 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

claims that because of his disabilities, he has experienced mental anguish and damage, harassment, 

threats, force, and verbal abuse.

Plaintiff claims Defendant Tilly is aware of his learning disability and is allowing him to be 

forced and threatened by teachers. He claims Defendant Willard is aware of his learning issues but 

forces him to do work that he does not understand. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Brione is forcing 

him and threatening him thereby causing mental anguish. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Freed is 

aware of everything and is going along with it, advising Plaintiff that he will be held accountable. 

He claims Defendant Silva is causing mental anguish by being aware of the situation and not taking 

action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rollins is fully aware of the wrong-doings but advises him 

that he will be held accountable for not participating and doing his class work.

Plaintiff asks the Court to investigate his learning disabilities and file legal charges against all 

staff for their alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiff seeks $100,000.00 from each person for punitive 

damages for his learning disabilities and mental anguish, and a court order for him to removed from 

education.

C. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any facts which support the existence of a viable claim for 

relief under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended 

complaint. Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 

1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). In amending his complaint, Plaintiff is informed of the following 

applicable legal standards.

1. Linkage

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 

(9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 is not itself a source of substantive 

rights, but merely provides a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.” Crowley v. 

Nevada ex rel. Nevada Sec’y of State, 678 F.3d 730, 734 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Graham v. Connor, 

490 U.S. 386, 393-94, 109 S.Ct. 1865 (1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). To state a claim, 

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 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

Plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating the existence of a link, or causal connection, between each 

defendant’s actions or omissions and a violation of his federal rights. Lemire v. California Dep’t of 

Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-08 

(9th Cir. 2011). 

The complaint is devoid of any facts supporting a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Plaintiff makes conclusory allegations that Defendants caused Plaintiff mental anguish by harassing, 

threatening and verbally abusing him because of his disability. Plaintiff is advised that verbal 

harassment or abuse alone is not sufficient to state a claim under section 1983, Oltarzewski v. 

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987), and threats do not rise to the level of a constitutional 

violation, Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations are

insufficient to support a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; 

Moss, 572 F.3d at 969. 

2. Supervisor Liability

Supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of 

subordinate employees based on respondeat superior, or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 

734 F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir. 2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 

1062, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915-16 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc). “A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional 

deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct 

and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Snow, 681 F.3d at 989) (internal 

quotation marks omitted); accord Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074-75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915-16. “Under 

the latter theory, supervisory liability exists even without overt personal participation in the 

offensive act if supervisory officials implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a 

repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 

734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

3. Discrimination 

Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of 

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 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

such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, 

or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

Title II applies to the services, programs, and activities provided for inmates by jails and prisons. 

Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 208-13, 118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998); Simmons v. 

Navajo Cnty., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2010); Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 

1214-15 (9th Cir. 2008). “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that 

(1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or 

otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; and 

(3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 

1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002); accord Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1021; McGary v. City of Portland, 386 

F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004).

4. Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause requires that persons who are similarly situated be treated alike. 

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 (1985); 

Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013); Furnace v. 

Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013); Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (9th Cir. 2008). 

An equal protection claim may be established by showing that Defendants intentionally 

discriminated against Plaintiff based on his membership in a protected class, Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 

1123; Furnace, 705 F.3d at 1030; Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 

F.3d 690, 702-03 (9th Cir. 2009); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003); Lee v. 

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th Cir. 2001), or that similarly situated individuals were 

intentionally treated differently without a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, Engquist 

v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591, 601-02, 128 S.Ct. 2146 (2008); Village of 

Willowbrook v. Olech; 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073 (2000); Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 

546 F.3d 580, 592 (9th Cir. 2008); North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th 

Cir. 2008).

D. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 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

1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Akhtar v. 

Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2012); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what 

Defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal rights and liability may not be imposed 

on supervisory personnel under the theory of mere respondeat superior, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; 

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205-07 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief 

above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). 

Finally, an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 220. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim

under section 1983;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00388-DLB Document 8 Filed 01/21/16 Page 6 of 6