Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00812-2/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

ERNEST MILLER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0812 MCE DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete in forma pauperis application. The

application must be signed by an authorized official at the correctional facility. Therefore, the

court will order plaintiff to submit a new application, using the form provided by the court. 

Plaintiff is also required to submit a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement for the

six month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint on March 31, 2006. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). If plaintiff is unable to obtain a certified copy of his trust account statement

Case 2:06-cv-00812-CAS Document 10 Filed 11/17/06 Page 1 of 5
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

from CSP - Corcoran, he should provide a statement of explanation and submit a certified copy

of his trust account statement from High Desert State Prison.

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00812-CAS Document 10 Filed 11/17/06 Page 2 of 5
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

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). 

Here, plaintiff names the California Department of Corrections and High Desert

State Prison as defendants. Neither are proper defendants in a civil rights action. See Allison v.

California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and

San Quentin Prison are not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act); Bennett v. California,

406 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1969) (California Adult Authority and California Department of

Corrections are not persons within meaning of Civil Rights Act). In addition, a suit against a

state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978). 

Plaintiff also names the “‘C-D-C’ Postal Mail Room” at High Desert State Prison and Susanville

City Postal Office as defendants in his action. Again, these entities are not persons properly

named as defendants in this civil rights action. Therefore, the court will dismiss the complaint

and grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which he names proper defendants. 

Plaintiff is advised that if he is attempting to claim a violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment’s equal protection clause, he must allege facts demonstrating “‘that defendants acted

with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a

protected class.’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 686-87 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

Case 2:06-cv-00812-CAS Document 10 Filed 11/17/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998)). Discriminatory intent or purpose

implies that a defendant took a particular course of action at least in part because of the adverse

effects upon an identifiable group. Id. at 687. It appears that as alleged in the pending

complaint, plaintiff’s claim is based solely on the allegation that mail packages were not

distributed for a three week period to non-Caucasian and non-Latino inmates. Such an allegation 

is not sufficient to state a cognizable Fourteenth Amendment claim. Plaintiff must provide

allegations demonstrating discriminatory intent. 

Plaintiff is advised that in his amended complaint he must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

On April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion: To Lodge

Documents in Support of ‘Postal Misconduct’ By Prison At Susanville State Prison, of c/o - staff

Guards, etc.” Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to “lodge” a copy of an

Inmate Request for Interview form, dated April 12, 2006, which he has attached to his motion. 

Case 2:06-cv-00812-CAS Document 10 Filed 11/17/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied in light of this order. Plaintiff may submit the request for

interview form as an exhibit to his amended complaint if he wishes. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

new application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a certified copy of his prison

trust account statement for the six month period immediately preceding the filing of the

complaint; 

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; plaintiff must use the form complaint

provided by the court; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case

and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and one copy of the

amended complaint; 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form for

requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner and the court’s form complaint for a

§ 1983 action;

5. Plaintiff’s April 28, 2006 motion to lodge a document is denied; and

6. Plaintiff’s failure to file his in forma pauperis application and an amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: November 16, 2006.

DAD:4

mill0812.14

Case 2:06-cv-00812-CAS Document 10 Filed 11/17/06 Page 5 of 5