Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05355/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05355-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD ZAMORA,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS,

Defendant.

 /

CV F 04-5355 AWI DLB P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed a

document entitled “Motion for Writ of Show Cause” which the Court constitutes as a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to

state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint

can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff names Warden D. Adams as the only defendant. Plaintiff

alleges that “staff” at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“SATF”) acted with

Case 1:04-cv-05355-AWI -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 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

deliberate indifference to the inmates’ safety by misrepresenting the level of racial tension among

the inmates. Plaintiff alleges “staff” tried to create racial tension hoping that violence would

occur. Plaintiff requests an internal investigation into staff conduct at SATF and an order

requiring the Warden to show cause why staff created racial tension. 

A. Section 1983 Linkage Requirement

Plaintiff is first advised that 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 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to link the only named defendant, Warden Adams with some

affirmative act or omission. Plaintiff only mentions “staff” and fails to identify specific conduct

on the part of specific individuals. 

The only named defendant is Warden Adams. Supervisory personnel are generally not

liable under section 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior

and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between

Case 1:04-cv-05355-AWI -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 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

3

him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley,

607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert.

denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief under section 1983 based on a theory of

supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some facts that would support a claim that supervisory

defendants either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew

of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so

deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force

of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal

citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal

pleading standards are broad, some facts must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. 

See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that Warden Adams personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Hansen v. Black at 646. It appears that plaintiff seeks to hold Warden Adams responsible for the

conduct of his staff, which as discussed is not permissible under section 1983. Plaintiff therefore

fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against Warden Adams, the only named defendant.

B. Failure to Protect Plaintiff

To the extent plaintiff allege that Warden Adams failed to protect him from risk of

serious harm, his claim also fails.

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 inmate’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

Case 1:04-cv-05355-AWI -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 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

must “know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Id. at 837.

Plaintiff states that “staff” created racial tension among the inmates in hopes of resulting

violence. As noted, Warden Adams is not responsible for his staff’s conduct under section 1983. 

Further, plaintiff does not allege that he was in any specific danger or that specific staff members

knew of and disregarded a serious risk to his health or safety. Plaintiff’s general reference to

“staff” and unspecified danger is simply not sufficient to state a cognizable claim under section

1983. The Court therefore dismisses this claim and grants plaintiff leave to amend the complaint

to allege with more specificity the basis for this claim.

C. Conclusion

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The

Court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. Failure to cure the deficiencies

will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate 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 terms how

each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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). 

In addition, plaintiff is 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 complaint is dismissed; 

Case 1:04-cv-05355-AWI -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 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

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff a section 1983 complaint form

for use by pro se prisoners;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

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 an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim and

failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 16, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05355-AWI -DLB Document 8 Filed 11/16/06 Page 5 of 5