Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00375-4/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

SHAKA MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0375 GEB GGH P

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 11, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. On

July 25, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was issued a mattress that was

damaged and had blood and urine stains on it. The court found that plaintiff had failed to link

defendants Sisto and Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

(CDCR) to the alleged deprivations.

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00375-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/23/07 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

The amended complaint again names as defendants Sisto and Director of the

CDCR. Plaintiff alleges that on June 25, 2006, he requested a mattress that did not have blood

and urine stains. Plaintiff alleges that the mattress he was offered was in the same condition or

worse. Plaintiff again fails to allege how either defendant was involved in his failure to obtain a

clean mattress. 

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).

The only specific allegation against defendant CDCR Director is that he has

control over state correctional facilities. Plaintiff is basing defendant CDCR Director’s liability

Case 2:07-cv-00375-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/23/07 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

on the improper theory of respondeat superior. Accordingly, the claims against this defendant

are dismissed.

The only specific allegation against defendant Sisto is that he is responsible for

the treatment, training and discipline of inmates under his charge. These allegations do not

sufficiently link defendant Sisto to plaintiff’s failure to receive a clean mattress. Accordingly,

the claims against this defendant are dismissed with leave to amend.

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must name as defendants those persons

responsible for his failure to obtain a clean mattress. If plaintiff is alleging that he was denied a

clean mattress pursuant to a policy, he must name as defendants those persons responsible for the

policy.

The amended complaint also does not state that type of relief sought, i.e.

monetary, injunctive or declaratory. On this ground, the amended complaint is dismissed as well.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the amended complaint filed July

25, 2007, is dismissed with thirty days to file a second amended complaint; failure to file a

second amended complaint within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this

action. 

DATED: 8/22/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

muh375.ord

Case 2:07-cv-00375-GEB-GGH Document 11 Filed 08/23/07 Page 3 of 3