Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01325-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HENDERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1325 FCD PAN P

vs.

T. FELKER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner 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 72-302 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). An initial partial filing fee of $10.28 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 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

Case 2:06-cv-01325-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/28/06 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

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).

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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 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 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).

Moreover, 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). 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).

Plaintiff’s inclusion of Warden T. Felker and Chief Medical Officer Dr. Roche is

based solely on a theory of respondeat superior. For the foregoing reasons, the court will not

order service of process on said defendants.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01325-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/28/06 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

Plaintiff also names Dr. French and John Does 1-10 as defendants, but there are

no charging allegations against Dr. French or John Does 1-10. Plaintiff states that Dr. French

examined an infection in his toe and prescribed a course of antibiotic medications. Plaintiff was

not seen by Dr. French in a follow-up examination. Plaintiff’s infection resolved after treatment.

For the foregoing reasons, there are no charging allegations against Dr. French. Plaintiff states

that John Does 1-10 were aware of his need for medication and for appointments to see medical

personnel, but fails to allege specific acts or omissions regarding these individuals. The court will

not, therefore, order service of process on Dr. French or John Does 1-10.

On July 11, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to add a defendant to this action.

Plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint once as of right. Upon amending his complaint,

plaintiff may add this defendant, but his complaint must be complete in itself. 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. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s complaint and

request to add a defendant will be dismissed with leave to amend the complaint. 

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

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $10.28. 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.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01325-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/28/06 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

3. Plaintiff’s complaint filed June 15, 2006, and request to add a defendant filed

July 11, 2006, are 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 this order, 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 a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

DATED: July 27, 2006.

14

hend1325.14.new

Case 2:06-cv-01325-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/28/06 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN HENDERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1325 FCD PAN P

vs.

T. FELKER, Warden, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

_________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01325-TLN-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/28/06 Page 5 of 5