Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01005/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01005-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WILLIAM JENSEN,

Plaintiff, 1:05-CV-01005 ALA P

vs.

JAMES A. YATES, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), when the litigant is a prisoner, this Court must screen

complaints brought against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. The Court must dismiss the complaint if the claims contained in it, even when read

broadly, are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(A)(b). A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this Court] must accept

[Plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

Case 1:05-cv-01005-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). 

Plaintiff alleges that he was twice robbed by fellow inmates and brings this action against

several correctional officers because they, “did nothing to abate them, and failed to secure,

charge, and prosecute the offenders.” Amended Complaint at 22. However, even assuming for

the sake of argument, that the correctional officers named intentionally acted to deprive Plaintiff

of his property, an unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by an employee of the state,

does not create a constitutional violation if there is a meaningful state law remedy available. 

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Plaintiff has not shown, and indeed is unlikely to

be able to show, that there is not a meaningful state law remedy available to Plaintiff for the

alleged conduct. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted and will therefore be dismissed with 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). 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. See 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 15-220 requires that an amended

Case 1:05-cv-01005-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

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 the complaint is

dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirtyfive (35) days from the date of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

dismissal of this action.

/////

DATED: November 1 , 2007 

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:05-cv-01005-LJO -WMW Document 25 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3