Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06712/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

RICK HAZELTINE,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 6712 REC REC WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

TUOLUMNE COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, et al.al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state civil detainee proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an civil detaineee in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at Atascadero State Hospital, brings this

civil rights action against defendant Tuolumne County Board of Supervisors and various

officials employed by the County of Tuloumne at the Tuolomne County Jail.

Plaintiff claims that, while housed at the Tulare County Jail, he was subjected to

numerous instances of unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 

To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. 

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 4 Filed 05/24/05 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

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the

complained of act was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

The statute plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Plaintiff lists several individuals as defendants. Plaintiff does not, however, 

allege specific facts that link each defendant to specific conduct by that defendant. Plaintiff

simply names defendants, then recites the conditions of confinement to which he was subjected. 

In order to hold individual defendants liable, plaintiff must allege specific facts as to each

defendant, showing how that defendant engaged in conduct that deprived plaintiff of a protected

interest. 

Further, plaintiff has not alleged facts indicating that through its omissions

Tuolumne County should be held responsible for the constitutional violation of its employees. 

See Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002) (outlining “two routes”

under which a plaintiff can successfully hold a county liable for inflicting a constitutional injuryby showing that the county itself violated a right or directed an employee to do so, or, in “limited

situtations.” by showing that the county’s deliberate indifference led to an omission in its

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 4 Filed 05/24/05 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

policies that caused an employee to violate a right). 

As to the supervisory defendants, liability may be imposed on supervisory

defendants under § 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated in the deprivation of

constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045

(9th Cir. 1989). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules 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. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

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). 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 4 Filed 05/24/05 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

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:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first 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 "First 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06712-LJO -JLT Document 4 Filed 05/24/05 Page 4 of 4