Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01658/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01658-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK GLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1658 LKK GGH P

vs.

MR. AUSTIAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On September 19, 2006, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to file a second

amended complaint. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s second amended complaint filed

September 29, 2006.

Named as defendants are Mrs. Campbell, Mr. Austian, Mr. Kanip and Mr.

Federico. Plaintiff alleges that the law librarian, Mrs. Hudgins, violated his right to access the

courts. The second amended complaint contains no claims against any of the named defendants.

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. 

Case 2:06-cv-01658-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/16/06 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

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 second amended complaint is dismissed because it contains no claims against

any of the named defendants. The court will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to file a

colorable complaint.

On October 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time. Because

the court is granting plaintiff thirty days to file a third amended complaint, the motion for

extension of time is denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The second amended complaint filed September 29, 2006, is dismissed with

thirty days to file a third amended complaint; failure to file a third amended complaint within that

time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action;

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01658-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/16/06 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

2. Plaintiff’s October 24, 2006, motion for extension of time is denied as

unnecessary. 

DATED: 11/15/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

gl1658.am(2)

Case 2:06-cv-01658-LKK -GGH Document 17 Filed 11/16/06 Page 3 of 3