Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01675-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

NARCISCO INOCENCIO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1675 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On July 28, 2006, defendants

removed this action from state to federal court because the complaint contains a constitutional

claim. The court construes this as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants

paid the filing fee. The court will now screen the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(court may

screen complaint notwithstanding payment of filing fee).

Named as defendants are the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR), Roderick Hickman, Warden Carey, the Prison Industries Authority

(PIA), T. Moore, M. Power and D. Walterich. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while working

at his PIA job. In particular, plaintiff was injured while moving heavy metal slats from one

location to another using laundry carts. Plaintiff alleges that the laundry carts were not adequate

Case 2:06-cv-01675-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 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

2

for this job. 

The only federal claim contained in plaintiff’s complaint is that defendants

violated his right to equal protection by denying his application for workmen’s compensation

benefits during the time he was injured. Plaintiff does not allege how his failure to receive

workmen’s compensation benefits violated the Equal Protection Clause. In addition, plaintiff

does not identify which defendants denied his request for these benefits.

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).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01675-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim is dismissed because plaintiff has failed to link

any defendant to this claim and because he has pled no facts in support of this claim. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with thirty days to file an amended

complaint; failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DATED: 9/25/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

ino1675.ord

Case 2:06-cv-01675-GEB-GGH Document 7 Filed 09/25/06 Page 3 of 3