Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01342/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01342-1/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

LaDON ROBERTS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1342 MCE JFM P

vs.

G. HOOD, 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 $250.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $1.24 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 2:05-cv-01342-MCE -JFM Document 6 Filed 12/22/06 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 court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01342-MCE -JFM Document 6 Filed 12/22/06 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’s complaint contains the following allegations. On July 27, 2004, he was

on assignment from the California Department of Corrections to work as a firefighter with the

California Department of Forestry (CDF). He was “left in the care of an unauthorized

representative” of the Bureau of Land Management, defendant Captain G. Hood, who was “not

certified to handle CDC inmate workers.” (Complaint, filed July 5, 2005, at 3.) Hood told

plaintiff and two other inmates to cut up a tree that was located in “an area that had not been

deemed safe by CDF procedures” and they were struck by a burning tree. (Id.) Plaintiff was

taken to the hospital and treated for a right knee contusion. He was given a lay-in for six days,

but then forced to go back to the fire-line with a leg immobilizer.

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. Plaintiff has not specifically identified any federal constitutional right violated

by defendants in connection with the events complained of. As a general rule, the Eighth

Amendment governs conditions of an inmate’s confinement. However, the facts alleged by

plaintiff are insufficient to support a cognizable claim for violation of his rights under the Eighth

Amendment. 

To state an Eighth Amendment claim based on injury from a safety violation, an

inmate must allege two elements: that he was placed in conditions posing a substantial risk of

serious harm; and that one or more defendants were deliberately indifferent to that risk. Farmer

v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

A prison official acts with “deliberate indifference only if the

prison official] knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate

health and safety.” Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290

F.3d 1175, 1187 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). Under this standard, the prison official must not

only “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” but that person “must

Case 2:05-cv-01342-MCE -JFM Document 6 Filed 12/22/06 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

also draw the inference.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837,

114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). “If a [prison official]

should have been aware of the risk, but was not, then the [official]

has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the

risk.” Gibson, 290 F.3d at 1188 (citation omitted). [Footnote

Omitted.] This “subjective approach” focuses only “on what a

defendant's mental attitude actually was.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839,

114 S.Ct. 1970. “Mere negligence in diagnosing or treating a

medical condition, without more, does not violate a prisoner's

Eighth Amendment rights.” McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1059

(alteration and citation omitted).

 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9 Cir. 2004). th

The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint do not state more than a claim for

negligence against any named defendant. For that reason, the complaint must be dismissed. It is

not clear, however, whether plaintiff could present additional allegations that might state a claim

for violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The court will, therefore, 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. 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

Case 2:05-cv-01342-MCE -JFM Document 6 Filed 12/22/06 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

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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $250.00 for this action. 

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $1.24. 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.

3. Plaintiff's complaint is 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 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: December 21, 2006.

12

robe1342.14

Case 2:05-cv-01342-MCE -JFM Document 6 Filed 12/22/06 Page 5 of 5