Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03695/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03695-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYMAN L. SIMS, SR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN EDDIE YLST,

DIRECTOR MRS. J. WOODFORD, et

al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3695 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING

MOTION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS AND

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CLERK

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay

State Prison in Crescent City, California, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the conditions of his confinement when he was previously

incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison. He has also filed an incomplete motion

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 3), which is now DENIED

because it does not include required information regarding funds in his prisoner trust

account.

On July 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “leave to amended complaint

civil local rules (10-7)” which the Court now construes as a motion seeking leave to

amend the complaint. That motion is now GRANTED. In this order, the Court

dismisses the complaint with leave to amend and orders Plaintiff to file an amended

complaint on the Court’s civil rights complaint form and a complete application to

proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days of the date of this order. 

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff generally complains about the treatment he received in San Quentin State

Prison, including “clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and life necessities.” 

Complaint at 3. Additionally, in his motion seeking leave to file an amended complaint,

he complains about specific issues involving his psychiatric medication and an

overflowing toilet, but does not specifically identify the responsible party. Because of

Plaintiff’s failure to provide specific information regarding how his constitutional rights

were violated and by whom, this Court will dismiss the complaint, but Plaintiff will be

granted leave to amend to submit an amended complaint within thirty days as set forth

below. 

DISCUSSION

I 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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). 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 two elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

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

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 only 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

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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

 1The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and

responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused

a constitutional deprivation. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633 (citations omitted).

3

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 6331

; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995)

(prison official's failure to intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation may be basis

for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead

"set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of protected rights. 

Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

II Legal Claims

To state a claim arising under federal law, it must be clear from the face of 

Plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question. Easton v. Crossland

Mortgage Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997). While a plaintiff is not required to

plead his evidence “or specific factual details not ascertainable in advance of discovery,”

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1340 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S.

1054 (1987), a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under § 1983 if the

allegations are mere conclusions, Kennedy v. H & M Landing, Inc., 529 F.2d 987, 989

(9th Cir. 1976). And a complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant

which violated the plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5

(9th Cir. 1982). District courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to

amend to correct any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,

1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to identify the claims and the specific acts of each 

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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 4

Defendant which violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. As such, it must be dismissed

and Plaintiff will be provided with leave to file an amended complaint to correct these

deficiencies within thirty days. With regard to the amended complaint, Plaintiff must set

forth in the amended complaint a short statement identifying the actions of each named

Defendant which violated Plaintiff's rights. The Court cannot cull defendants and claims

from Plaintiff's pleadings and documentation. Plaintiff must clearly and succinctly:

name each Defendant, state the injury that Defendant caused, identify the claimed

constitutional (or other federal right) violated, and request the sought-after remedy.

Without this basic information, the complaint cannot proceed. Accordingly, the

complaint is DISMISSED. However, Plaintiff is provided with LEAVE TO AMEND his

complaint within thirty days, as set forth below.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff

shall file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of this order. The

amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the

words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Failure to

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of the complaint without

prejudice. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the Court’s prisoner

civil rights complaint form. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED (docket no. 2). 

Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee or file a new complete application within thirty

days. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The

Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank copy of the Court’s prisoner in forma

pauperis application.

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 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 5

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

4. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/06/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03695-TEH Document 9 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 5