Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01296/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01296-5/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

DONALD WEBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01296-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

I. Screening Order

A. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed after

this action was severed from 1:05-cv-1170 REC DLB. 

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 1:05-cv-01296-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 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

27

28

2

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957);see also Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg.

Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395

U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The events at issue in the instant action allegedly occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison

(“PVSP”). Plaintiff names Associate Warden Trimble, Captain Davis, Classification Official

Nergenan, Hearing Officer Pipolan and Sergeant Vera as defendants. Plaintiff is seeking money

damages and injunctive relief. 

C. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff generally alleges that officials at PVSP have “neglected their duties” and have

“abused their authority.” Without description, plaintiff alleges these actions have jeopardized his

life and could have resulted in death.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution .

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity,

or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell

v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right,

within the meaning of section 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

Case 1:05-cv-01296-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 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

27

28

3

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of

notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim.

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of

every fact a plaintiff 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.” Id. at 47.

Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with section 1983 linkage requirements because

it does not provide each defendant with fair notice of what that defendant did or did not do that

allegedly violated plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff generally describes allegedly wrongful conduct but he

fails to link the named defendants to any specific conduct. The court will provide plaintiff with an

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing these deficiencies and specially linking the named

defendants to his claims. In doing so, plaintiff should set forth enough facts so that each defendant

is on notice as to what he or she did or did not do that plaintiff believes violated his rights. 

D. Conclusion

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure

to comply with the linkage requirements of section1983 and for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. The Court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint. In drafting his amended complaint, plaintiff is cautioned that it is his responsibility to

organize his complaint so that defendants and the court can readily ascertain which claims plaintiff

is pursuing against which defendants.

Finally, plaintiff is advised Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case.

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement

of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:05-cv-01296-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 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

27

28

4

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

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

3. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint;

4. The failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may result in

an order striking the amended complaint from the record; and

5. The failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01296-LJO -DLB Document 17 Filed 03/06/08 Page 4 of 4