Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01815/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01815-8/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

JAMES M. URSINO, No. CIV S-05-1815-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

PERRY RENIFF,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on

September 9, 2005.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:05-cv-01815-FCD-CMK Document 35 Filed 06/05/06 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

2

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names Perry Reniff, the Butte County Sheriff. While the complaint is

hand-written and difficult to decipher, it appears that plaintiff alleges that defendant Reniff’s

subordinate deputies and mail room staff are acting in concert by “stealing mail” and otherwise

acting inappropriately with regard to inmate mail. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive

damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s complaint suffers from at least two defects. First, as to the only named

defendant – Sheriff Reniff – plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged supervisory liability. Second,

as to unnamed deputies and mail room staff, plaintiff fails to link any particular individual to a

constitutional violation.

A. Supervisory Liability

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is

no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional

violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of

Case 2:05-cv-01815-FCD-CMK Document 35 Filed 06/05/06 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

3

the violations and failed to act to prevent them. See id. When a defendant holds a supervisory

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). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the

involvement of supervisory personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In this case, the only named defendant is Sheriff Reniff. However, the complaint

alleges conduct on the part of unnamed deputies and mail room staff. Therefore, if defendant

Reniff is to be liable, it could only be on a theory of supervisor liability. The complaint,

however, does not allege any causal link between defendant Reniff and any constitutional

violation. Specifically, plaintiff does not allege that defendant Reniff participated in or directed

a constitutional violation. 

B. Causal Link

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). 

“A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 

§ 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). Vague and conclusory

allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff

must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged

constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01815-FCD-CMK Document 35 Filed 06/05/06 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

4

In this case, the defendants alleged to have violated plaintiff’s constitutional

rights are unnamed deputies and mail room staff. The complaint, however, does not link the

alleged violations to any particular individual. While plaintiff may seek the identities of

unknown defendants through discovery in this action, he must at least state a claim as to one

defendant. As discussed above, the complaint is currently insufficient to state a claim against the

only named defendant – Sheriff Reniff. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

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, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01815-FCD-CMK Document 35 Filed 06/05/06 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

5

Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the time

provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to

comply with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Finally, a review of the docket reflects that plaintiff filed a request for documents

(Doc. 32) on May 31, 2006. In his request, plaintiff recites that he does not have access to his

legal materials due to alleged retaliation. Plaintiff does not, however, request any specific

documents. This request will, therefore, be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on September 9, 2005, is dismissed with leave

to amend; 

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

service of this order; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for documents (Doc. 32) is denied.

DATED: June 2, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01815-FCD-CMK Document 35 Filed 06/05/06 Page 5 of 5