Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01690/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01690-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1690 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect 

the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/14/14 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

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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, 1227-28 (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.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant O’Weary, a correctional officer, retaliated against him for 

filing inmate grievances. For screening purposes, the complaint states a cognizable claim for 

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as to this defendant. If the 

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/14/14 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

allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the 

merits of this action.

As to defendant Sheriff Ferrara, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under 

§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 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). Plaintiff’s allegations as to Ferrara fail to “plausibly establish the defendant’s 

‘knowledge of’ and ‘acquiescence in’ the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates.” Hydrick 

v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus plaintiff fails to state a claim as to this 

supervisory defendant.

As to defendant Solano County Jail, “[m]unicipalities and other local government units ... 

[are] among those persons to whom § 1983 applies.” Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. at 

690. However, a municipal entity or its departments is liable under § 1983 only if plaintiff shows 

that his constitutional injury was caused by employees acting pursuant to the municipality’s 

policy or custom. See Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival Association, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 

2008) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–94). “[A]n act performed pursuant to a ‘custom’ that has 

not been formally approved by an appropriate decisionmaker may fairly subject a municipality to 

liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law.” 

Board of County Comm’rs. of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). A local 

governmental entity may also be liable if it has a “policy of inaction and such inaction amounts to 

a failure to protect constitutional rights.” Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989)); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 690–91. 

“[A] policy is ‘a deliberate choice to follow a course of action . . . made from among various 

alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the 

subject matter in question.’ ” Oviatt, 954 F.2d at 1477 (quoting Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 

475 U.S. 469, 483–84 (1986)). Here, plaintiff has not alleged that defendant O’Weary was acting 

according to a county policy or custom.

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/14/14 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

Plaintiff’s allegations as to these defendants are insufficient to state a claim. However, 

plaintiff will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to state a claim against 

these defendants. Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, 

it is not for the purpose of adding new claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007). If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he should carefully read this screening order 

and focus his efforts on curing the deficiencies set forth above.

Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of service of this order to amend his

complaint. Plaintiff is not required to file an amended complaint, but failure to do so will be 

construed as plaintiff’s consent to dismiss the above-mentioned defendants and causes of action 

with prejudice.

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). Also, 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). Furthermore, 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).

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 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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/14/14 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. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Thomas A. Ferrara and Solano County Jail are 

dismissed with leave to amend. 

4. If plaintiff elects to amend, any amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

5. Upon the filing of an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, the 

court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants. 

Dated: October 14, 2014

2 / harr1690.1new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-01690-TLN-CKD Document 4 Filed 10/14/14 Page 5 of 5