Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00988-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLARENCE E. HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00988-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Clarence E. Howard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on July

6, 2007.

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).

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00988-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 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

27

28

2

II. Failure to Comply with Rule 8(a)

“Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a) expresses the

principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need not give an elaborate recitation of every fact

he may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “‘give the defendant fair notice

of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.

A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-12, 122 S.Ct. 992 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct.

99 (1957)). 

Plaintiff’s complaint is thirty-four dense pages long and best described as a dissertation of

events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim, supported by lengthy legal arguments and citations. It is the

Court’s duty to screen a complaint and determine whether it states any cognizable claims. It is

Plaintiff’s duty to present a pleading that complies with Rule 8(a). All that is required is for Plaintiff

to briefly state what each defendant did or did not do that violated his rights. The present complaint

goes well beyond what is acceptable under Rule 8(a). Given the current state of the Pleading, the

Court declines to wade through its morass of unnecessary facts and arguments. Plaintiff shall

therefore be required to submit a pleading that complies with Rule 8(a). 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a) and shall be dismissed as a result. The

Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies

identified by the Court in this order.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint 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 but brief terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability 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). Plaintiff is advised that “there is no pure respondeat superior liability under § 1983, [and]

a supervisor [may be held] liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates [only] ‘if the

Case 1:07-cv-00988-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 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

27

28

3

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 987, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)). 

 An amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading,” Local Rule 15-220.

Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged

in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers &

Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a);

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 11, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00988-OWW -GSA Document 20 Filed 04/11/08 Page 3 of 3