Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00614-2/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

DANIEL HOLLAND, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0614 RRB KJM P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On June 6, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint; plaintiff has now

filed an amended complaint. 

As previously noted, 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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 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

28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 126 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). A complaint must

contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. However,

“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 

U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must 

accept as true the allegations of the complaint, id., and construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff alleges that he suffers from a medical condition which often causes

involuntary movement and jerking while he sleeps and, as a result, he was given a chrono for a

lower bunk. Despite this, several correctional officers at Deuel Vocational Institute, identified

only as “John Doe,” ignored his chronos and put him on an upper bunk. Within a week of

reaching DVI, plaintiff fell from the bunk and injured himself.

The complaint states a claim against the correctional personnel identified by

defendants as John Doe I, II and III. However, the use of such fictitiously-named defendants is

disfavored in federal court. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980);

Provience v. Valley Clerks Trust Fund, 509 F.Supp. 388, 392 (E.D. Cal. 1981). The proper

procedure is to amend the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 once the identity of

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 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

defendants is known through discovery or other means. See Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, Inc.,

91 F.R.D. 543, 547 (D. Nev. 1981). 

Plaintiff also names James Tilton, the Director of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation; C.E. Finn, Warden of DVI; S.R. Moore, Chief Deputy Warden

of DVI, R. Lucas, correctional captain, D. Stapp, sergeant. As to the latter group of defendants,

plaintiff alleges that they are either responsible for the care and welfare of inmates, failed to

oversee plaintiff’s safe housing, or failed to train employees on the safe housing of inmates with

medical disabilities. A plaintiff must connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed

denial of his rights. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for

deliberate indifference to assault requires that official know of and disregard an “excessive

risk”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises

only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant . . . [t]here is no respondeat

superior liability under section 1983.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978)

(discussing “requisite causal connection” in section 1983 cases between named defendant and

claimed injury); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525

U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). Vague and

conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff’s allegations of supervisory

liability are insufficient to state a claim. 

Moreover, when a plaintiff claims that a defendant is liable for failing to train his

subordinates, he must establish that “in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or

employees, the need for more or different training is obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to

result in violations of constitutional rights, that the policy-makers . . . can reasonably have been

said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.” Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 905

(9th Cir. 2002.) Again, in this light, plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient. 

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 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 will be given leave to file an amended complaint. He is again informed

that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint

complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without

reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file second amended

complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: December 4, 2007. 

2

holl0614.14(ac 8-13)

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 15 Filed 12/05/07 Page 4 of 4