Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00990-9/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. VELLA-LOPEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 44)

Plaintiff Raymond Alford Bradford (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 25, 2011. This 

action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on January 31, 2014, against 

Defendants Peppercorn, Brooks, and Yu (“Defendants”) for violating Plaintiff’s right to adequate 

medical care under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

On April 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Notice of Motion and Motion to Clarify 

Relief.” The motion is directed at clarifying that Plaintiff is suing the defendants in their official 

and individual capacities. However, the underlying basis for Plaintiff’s concern is unclear. 

While Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is silent as to the capacity in which each 

defendant is sued, Plaintiff is seeking damages based on Defendants’ alleged involvement in the 

violation of his constitutional rights and therefore, it is presumed that they are named in their 

individual capacities. Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 1999); ShoshoneBannock Tribes v. Fish & Game Com’n, Idaho, 42 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994). With respect 

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 81 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 2
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

to any official capacity claims, the Court notes only that Plaintiff is also seeking prospective relief 

in the form of a special diet, nutritional supplements, and transfer to a medical facility. Whatever 

merit that request may or may not have in this case, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A); Monsanto Co. v. 

Geerston Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 156-57, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2756 (2010), official capacity claims 

for prospective relief are permissible in general, Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065-66 

(9th Cir. 2010); Aholelei v. Dept. of Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007), but “[a]n 

official-capacity suit ‘represent[s] only another way of pleading an action against an entity of 

which an officer is an agent,’” Hartmann v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 

1127 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099 (1985)), 

and they are “‘treated as suits against the State,’” id. (quoting Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 

S.Ct. 358 (1991)). 

Accordingly, by this order, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification is DEEMED ADDRESSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00990-AWI-SKO Document 81 Filed 12/12/14 Page 2 of 2