Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00538-2/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

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK RAGSDALE, CASE NO. CV-F-06-538 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

vs.

[Doc. 1]

D.M. CASE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action on May 4, 2006.

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). 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00538-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 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

27

28

2

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).

I. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Allegations

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, in July of 2005, defendant Correctional Officer

Case, wrote a serious rules violation report against plaintiff for battery on an inmate. Plaintiff alleges

that he fabricated a story which endangered plaintiff’s safety. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Officer

Garrison made the information public which has placed him in danger. Plaintiff seeks monetary and

injunctive relief.

B. Eighth Amendment Claim

Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical

abuse. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d at 1250-51; Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). To

establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must establish that prison officials were “deliberately

indifferent to a serious threat to the inmates’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834. The

deliberate indifference standard involves an objective and a subjective prong. First, the alleged

deprivation must be, in objective terms, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 834(citing

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). Second, the prison official must “know of and disregard

an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00538-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 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

27

28

3

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 deprivation of which complaint is

made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In the instant action, plaintiff alleges only that defendants made public certain information that

has placed him in danger. Plaintiff’s allegations are so conclusory that the court is unable to determine

whether or not plaintiff may be able to state a cognizable claim for relief. Plaintiff has not linked either

defendant to any resulting harm to plaintiff or any act committed by another inmate. Plaintiff must link

the defendants to an act or omission that caused the deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. In

addition, in order to state a cognizable claim for relief under the Eighth Amendment, plaintiff’s

allegations must demonstrate that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to a serious threat to

plaintiff’s safety. The court finds that plaintiff has not stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

against either defendant Case or defendant Garrison. The court will provide plaintiff one opportunity

to amend his complaint, in the event that plaintiff believes, in good faith, that he has a cognizable claim

for relief under section 1983.

Plaintiff is advised that 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.

 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 4, 2006, is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. On or before April 2, 2007, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if plaintiff

believes in good faith that he has a cognizable claim for relief under section

1983;

Case 1:06-cv-00538-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 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

27

28

4

3. The amended complaint shall bear the caption “First Amended Complaint;” and

4. Failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result in

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00538-LJO-DLB Document 12 Filed 03/05/07 Page 4 of 4