Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295-3/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:13-CV-2295-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BUTTE COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a 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).

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). 

1

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/21/15 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

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. 

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Butte County Police Department;

(2) Michael L. Ramsey; and (3) “Butte County Officers.” Plaintiff claims that he was subjected

to an improper vehicle stop. 

As to the Butte County Police Department, municipalities and other local

government units are among those “persons” to whom § 1983 liability applies. See Monell v.

Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Counties and municipal government officials are

also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. at 691; see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles,

885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local government unit, however, may not be held

responsible for the acts of its employees or officials under a respondeat superior theory of

liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Thus, municipal

liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of the actions of its employees or

officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the plaintiff must allege that the

constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or custom of the municipality. 

See id. A claim of municipal liability under § 1983 is sufficient to withstand dismissal even if it

is based on nothing more than bare allegations that an individual defendant’s conduct conformed

to official policy, custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d

621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, plaintiff fails to identify any custom or policy of the Butte

County Police Department which resulted in the alleged constitutional deprivation.

2

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/21/15 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

As to the only remaining named defendant – Michael L. Ramsey – plaintiff has

failed to link the alleged constitutional violation to any conduct on this defendant’s part. To state

a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between

the actions of the named 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). 

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 220. An amended complaint must be

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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

3

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/21/15 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

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 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). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

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

service of this order.

DATED: May 21, 2015

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 13 Filed 05/21/15 Page 4 of 4