Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01429-2/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

BENJAMIN M. HERNANDEZ, No. CIV S-05-1429-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on July 15,

2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This

Case 2:05-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names as the sole defendant to this action D.L. Runnels, the warden of

High Desert State Prison. Plaintiff asserts that High Desert State Prison is hindering his access to

the courts with respect to a habeas corpus case. The complaint seeks various forms of injunctive

relief.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from at least two defects. First, the only named

defendant holds a supervisory position, but the complaint fails to adequately allege a claim based

on supervisory liability. Second, the complaint does not set forth an adequate causal link between

any named defendant and a constitutional deprivation.

A. Supervisory Liability

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their

employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no

respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional

violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. When a defendant holds a supervisory

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). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of

supervisory personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents,

Case 2:05-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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

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

Here, the complaint is devoid of any allegations of the specific involvement of

defendant Runnels. 

B. Causal Link

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t 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). Vague and conclusory allegations

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual

defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

Again, the complaint is devoid of any specific allegations as to defendant Runnels,

the only named defendant. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

Case 2:05-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on July 15, 2005, is dismissed with leave to

amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: October 27, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01429-GEB-CMK Document 6 Filed 10/28/05 Page 4 of 4