Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01226/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01226-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN MIGUEL CHAVIRA,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

R. RUTH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01226 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE 

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

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 has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on January 9, 2013 (ECF No 16).

Case 1:12-cv-01226-GSA Document 18 Filed 04/09/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

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). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), 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). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the 

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” 

Nietze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights 

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. 

Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting Ivey v.Bd. of Regents, 

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi, brings this 

action against defendant correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley State 

Prison. Plaintiff names as defendants Appeals Coordinator R. Ruth, Mental Health Care 

Services, an unidentified Staff Officer, and Kern Valley State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s statement of claim is vague and rambling. Plaintiff references the process of 

administrative review of his inmate grievances, and also makes reference to his health care. 

Plaintiff does not specifically identify any conduct by any individual defendant. 

Under section 1983, Plaintiff must link the named defendants to the participation in 

the violation at issue. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009); Simmons v. Navajo 

County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010). Liability may not be imposed under a 

Case 1:12-cv-01226-GSA Document 18 Filed 04/09/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

theory of respondeat superior, and there must exist come causal connection between the 

conduct of each named defendant and the violation at issue. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676-77; 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), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2101 (2012). Plaintiff has failed 

to do so here. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted 

leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order 

to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe 

where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted 

under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right 

described by Plaintiff. 

III. Conclusion

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the 

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this 

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he 

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended 

complaint. 

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

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other 

federal rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell 

Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007)(citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete and in and of itself without reference to 

the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of 

Case 1:12-cv-01226-GSA Document 18 Filed 04/09/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 

(9th Cir. 1981)). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

claim;

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

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

amended complaint;

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended complaint; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01226-GSA Document 18 Filed 04/09/15 Page 4 of 4