Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00727-2/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

TRAVARE GRANT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 00727 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 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 

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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on May 23, 2014 (ECF No. 7).

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 7
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

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. Swierkiewicz 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.” Neitze 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

This action proceeds on the June 23, 2014, first amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate 

in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP 

Sacramento, brings this civil rights action against the CDCR and CDCR Secretary Matthew 

Cate. The events at issue in this lawsuit occurred while Plaintiff was housed at CSP Corcoran.

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to excessive force. 

Plaintiff alleges that on October 21, 2010, he was grabbed by the neck and had his face 

pushed into a wall by a “non-peace officer.” Plaintiff alleges that on March 9, 2013, his arm was 

“snatched and twisted by a non-peace officer.” Plaintiff alleges that on February 7, 2014, 

“corrupt staff of CDCR defamed my character with false accusations of a battery against me, a 

witness clearly told a lie and false testimony was accepted by the corrupted hearing officer who 

disregarded the facts that there was no proof in the circumstances against me but proof of 

employee lies.” 

///

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 7
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

///

A. Excessive Force

The Eighth Amendment‟s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects 

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of 

confinement.” Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). „[W]hile conditions 

of confinement may be, and often are, restrictive and harsh, they „must not involve the wanton 

and unnecessary infliction of pain.‟” Id. (Quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 

(1981)). “What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual 

Punishment Clause depends on the claim at issue . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 

(1992).

For excessive force claims, the issue is “whether force was applied in a good-faith effort 

to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson, 503 

U.S. at 7. Although de minimis uses of force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and 

sadistic use of force to cause harm always violates the Eighth Amendment, regardless of whether 

or not significant injury is evident.” Id. at 9-10.

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth generalized 

allegations regarding the use of force, but fails to identify who specifically subjected him to 

excessive force. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the 

defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by 

the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 

2006). “A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an 

affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that 

person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” 

Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 

743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite causal connection can be established not only by some 

kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of 

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 3 of 7
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

acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the 

constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged 

any identifiable individual with conduct that constitutes excessive force. In order to hold an 

individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must specifically identify the individual. Plaintiff has not 

done so here. This claim should therefore be dismissed. 

B. Supervisory Defendant

The only individual identified as a defendant is the Secretary of Corrections, Matthew 

Cate. Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under a 

theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a government 

official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 actions, 

Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own individual 

actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must 

link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation 

of Plaintiff‟s federal rights. Plaintiff has not charged any conduct to Defendant Cate. He should 

therefore be dismissed.

C. Eleventh Amendment

The only other identifiable defendant is the CDCR. “The Eleventh Amendment prohibits 

federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. Though its language 

might suggest otherwise, the Eleventh Amendment has long been construed to extend to suits 

brought against a state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states.” Brooks v. 

Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Seminole 

Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct Sewer Authority v. 

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939 F.2d 676, 

677 (9th Cir. 1991).

The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as those where the 

state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v. California 

Department of Transportation, 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brooks, 951 F.2d at 1053; 

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 4 of 7
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

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of 

Prisons was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles 

Community College District, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). The CDCR, as an agency of the 

state, is therefore immune from suit.

D. False Accusations

It is unclear what Plaintiff‟s specific claim is. Plaintiff refers to defamation, false 

accusations and refers to “a battery against me.” Plaintiff is advised that there is no civil rights 

action for slander. See Johnson v. Barker, 799 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, mere 

verbal conduct or abuse is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987).

III. Conclusion and Order

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. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

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 or her own words, what happened. 

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

by Plaintiff. 

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 

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 5 of 7
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

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

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

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes 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 in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of 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)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s first amended 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 (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

second 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: September 25, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 6 of 7
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 7

Case 1:14-cv-00727-EPG Document 14 Filed 09/25/14 Page 7 of 7