Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05417/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05417-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417dwlta 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL MUTAWALLY

COOPERWOOD, et. al., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROBERT TILTON, et. al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-5417 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Plaintiff and nine state prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison proceeding pro se, filed this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint

with allegations pertaining to himself only. In a separate written order, the Court dismissed the

remaining Plaintiffs without prejudice because this civil rights action could not proceed as a class

action. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate written order. 

The Court will DISMISS the amended complaint with leave to amend as set forth below. 

/// 

///

///

-------

JF

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417dwlta 2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) officials are deliberately

indifferent to his medical needs. Plaintiff complains that the living conditions in PBSP’s

Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) and on the SHU’s exercise yard are unsanitary. The unsanitary

conditions are based on fungus, bacteria and unidentified foreign contaminants which blow

through the air and into the air vents. The yard’s walls and floors are covered in these

contaminants. Based upon these living conditions, Plaintiff has suffered health problems such as

asthma, headaches, shortness of breath, insomnia, exhaustion, allergies, fever, vomiting and

vision impairment. Amended Complaint at 2. Plaintiff filed an administrative grievance through

PBSP appeal process, which was denied through the Director’s level of review. Plaintiff names

the following Defendants in the amended complaint: Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) Robert Tilton, CDCR Health Care Receiver Robert

Sillen, PBSP Warden Robert Horel, PBSP Deputy Warden C. Scavetta, PBSP Chief Medical

Officer M.C. Sayre, PBSP Registered Nurse S. Risenhoover, PBSP Registered Nurse J. Flowers,

PBSP Plant Operations Supervisor Bob McKinney, PBSP Floor Unit Officer D. Methfor, PBSP

D-yard Control Booth Officer M. Cuthbertson. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive

relief, and monetary damages. 

DISCUSSION 

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under

the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417dwlta 3

United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff

can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. 

See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d

1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the

meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which

the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff alleges that the living conditions in PBSP’s SHU are unsanitary. The unsanitary

conditions are due to fungus, bacteria and unidentified foreign contaminants which blow through

the air and into the air vents. Plaintiff has suffered health problems due to these unsanitary

conditions. Plaintiff alleges that the inhumane living conditions and Defendants’ deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. 

Plaintiff claims fails at the outset because he fails to set forth specific facts showing how

each Defendant proximately caused a constitutional deprivation. For a claim to be cognizable, a

Plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s deprivation of protected

rights.” Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. But here, Plaintiff alleges facts against all Defendants without

explaining the actions of each individual Defendant involved. As such, Plaintiff fails to link each

of the named Defendants to his claims. Accordingly, the amended complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against any of the named Defendants. 

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting each claim against each individual Defendant 

separately in his second amended complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each

Defendant. Plaintiff should list the constitutional right he has, describe what each Defendant did

or failed to do, and describe how each Defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. He

should not refer to the Defendants as a group, i.e., “the Defendants;” rather, he should identify

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417dwlta 4

each involved Defendant by name and link each of them to a specific claim by explaining what

each Defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. 

As to Plaintiff’s claim against CDCR Secretary Tilton, CDCR Health Care Receiver

Sillen, PBSP Warden Horel, PBSP Deputy Warden Scavetta, and PBSP Chief Medical Officer

Sayre, Plaintiff is cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under Section 1983, i.e.

no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions of an employee. 

Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the

defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor may be liable

under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the

constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991)

(en banc) (citation omitted). Plaintiff may re-allege his claim that these Defendants failed to train

and/or supervise in their respective positions, however he should describe each Defendant’s

individual actions or omissions and the resulting constitutional violation in his claim. 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the amended complaint to cure these deficiencies. 

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty

(30) days of the date this order is filed to include sufficient facts to support his claims against

each Defendant and the alleged constitutional violation he suffered. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated 

above, within thirty (30) days from the date this order is filed. The amended complaint must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (07-5417 JF (PR)) and the words

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint

completely replaces the original complaint, Plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to

present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321

(1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the original complaint or the amended

complaint, such as supporting documentation of the prison appeal process, by reference. 

Plaintiff must include all of his claims and name all Defendants in the second amended

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend 

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Cooperwood417dwlta 5

complaint. Failure to file a second amended complaint within the designated time will

result in the Court dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

 2. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for an

extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEREMY FOGEL

 United States District Judge

4/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-05417-JF Document 22 Filed 04/10/08 Page 5 of 5