Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS SOLIS ARREOLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2548 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 11, 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

Pending before the court is the amended complaint filed January 30, 2006.

Named as defendants are Dr. Mahmoud, Dr. Naku, Dr. Tan, Dr. Thor, Dr. Rohrer,

Dr. Deurv and Dr. Solomon.

The amended complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants

Naku and Solomon.

The amended complaint contains no allegations against defendants Tan, Thor,

Rohrer or Deurv. 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

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

2

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).

Because plaintiff has failed to link defendants Tan, Thor, Rohrer and Deurv to the

alleged deprivations, the claims against these defendants are dismissed with leave to amend. If

plaintiff files a second amended complaint, he must specifically allege how these defendants

violated his constitutional rights.

The only allegation against defendant Mahmoud is that he ignored plaintiff’s

medical problems. Plaintiff offers no other specific allegations regarding how defendant

Mahmoud ignored his medical problems such as, for example, whether defendant Mahmoud

examined plaintiff on a certain occasion but failed to provide treatment. Because plaintiff’s

allegation against defendant Mahmoud is vague and conclusory, the court cannot determine

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

3

whether plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for relief against this defendant. Accordingly, the

claim against defendant Mahmoud is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff files a second

amended complaint, he must specifically describe how defendant Mahmoud ignored his medical

problems.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second 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). 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 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Mahmoud, Tan, Thor, Rohrer and Deurv

are dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file a second amended complaint

within thirty days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file a second amended

complaint will result in a recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action.

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 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

4

2. Upon filing a second 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: 2/24/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

arr2548.ame

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 6 Filed 02/27/06 Page 4 of 4