Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01927/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01927-1/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

BRENT LEE HARDING,

Plaintiff,

v.

RIO CONSUMNES CORRECTIONAL 

FACILITY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1927 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action 

before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request 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 

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

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 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

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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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, 556 U.S. 

at 678. 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). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the 

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 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

1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 

engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The court 

will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended 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). Plaintiff alleges he has been denied narcotic 

medication, meals free of food to which plaintiff says he is “allergic” and soft shoes which 

plaintiff asserts he requires because of plantar fasciitis. In his amended complaint, plaintiff must 

explain in greater detail why denial of these items amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in 

violation of the Eighth Amendment, or punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment if 

plaintiff is a pretrial detainee. For example, with respect to plaintiff’s allegations regarding his 

diet, he must identify those types of food to which he is allergic and identify to what extent he is 

provided with food to which he is not allergic. Plaintiff must keep in mind that the Eighth 

Amendment “does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 350 

(1981). 

Also, plaintiff’s amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved in any alleged deprivation of Constitutional rights. 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). 

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). Municipalities 

can be defendants in a § 1983 action, to the extent they adopt an unconstitutional policy or 

practice, and plaintiff is injured as a result of that policy or practice. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 

Services of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 638, 690 (1978). Plaintiff must identify with particularity the 

custom or practice which caused Constitutional injury.

Finally, 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 

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 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

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. 

The court notes that plaintiff has filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Because 

no defendant has been served with process, plaintiff’s motion is premature and will be denied 

without prejudice to refiling if and when a defendant is served.

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 7) is granted.

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 Sacramento County Sheriff 

filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. 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”; failure to file an amended 

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

dismissed.

5. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 5) is denied without prejudice.

Dated: November 12, 2015

1

hard1927.14

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-01927-JAM-CKD Document 8 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 4