Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06755/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06755-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNOSO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6755 REC SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc.1) 

 James L. Thompson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on December 27, 2004. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 1 of 8
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

27

28

2

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

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

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff provides a detailed narrative of the facts forming the basis of his Complaint. 

However, because Plaintiff details every minute instance of contact or conduct by at least twenty

individuals, the Court is able only to determine that the instant action arises from facts which

Plaintiff alleges constitute excessive force. Because the Complaint is lengthy, someone illegible

and very, very detailed, the Court will provide Plaintiff with the relevant law, or at least the law

believed to be relevant, so that he may amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined

below. 

C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

1. Linkage Requirement

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

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 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

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 2 of 8
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

27

28

3

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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named

Defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff’s

federal rights.

Here, Plaintiff has named twenty (20) Defendants and, as noted above, provides a detailed

narrative of every event surrounding the alleged excessive force. However, Plaintiff has failed to

link numerous Defendants to an act or omission giving rise to a constitutional violation. It is

insufficient to state that Plaintiff “believes” someone is involved in “excessive force.” Plaintiff

must state specifically what each individual did and how that constituted the constitutional

violation. 

2. Rule 8(a)

A Complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which

calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the

opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a)

does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial,

but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

In this instance, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is so lengthy and unorganized

that it is not sufficient to put Defendants on notice as to which of their actions violated Plaintiff’s

rights. The Court will provide Plaintiff with what may or may not be relevant legal authority to

assist Plaintiff in formulating his claims below. Plaintiff’s pleading should be short and to the

point, containing only those facts necessary to state one or more claims against each Defendant. 

Plaintiff’s pleading should not contain legal arguments, citations to legal authority, or

unnecessary background information. The function of the complaint is to place Defendants on

notice as to Plaintiff’s claims. It is not the function of the Complaint to list every single fact

relating to Plaintiff’s claims and it is not the function of the Complaint to include all of the

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 3 of 8
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

27

28

4

evidence in Plaintiff’s possession that he intends to use to support his claims. Plaintiff must

submit a complaint to the Court that meets the requirements of Rule 8.

3. Excessive Force 

The use of excessive force by a prison official violates the eighth amendment. Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). Determining whether there has been an eighth

amendment violation turns upon " 'whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.' " See id.

at 6 (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986)).

To prevail on an excessive force claim, an inmate must show the official applied force

"maliciously and sadistically" for the purpose of inflicting pain, rather than in a "good faith effort

to maintain or restore discipline." Id. at 4-5, 7, 112 S.Ct. at 999. Such factors as the need for

the application of the force, the relationship between the need for the application of force and the

amount of force used, and the extent of injury inflicted are relevant to the ultimate determination.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986). An inmate, however, does not

need to have suffered an injury to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Hudson, 503 U.S.

at 7.

The Supreme Court has further held that not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard

gives rise to a federal cause of action. Id. at 9. “Not every push or shove, even if it may later

seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights.” 

Id. (citing Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2nd Cir. 1973) (cert. denied sub nom.

Johnson, 414 U.S. 1033 (1973)). “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of ‘cruel and unusual’

punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical

force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” 

Id. at 9-10.

4. Property Deprivation

The Court notes that Plaintiff makes passing reference to loss of property. 

The United States Supreme Court has held that “[a]n unauthorized intentional deprivation

of property . . . does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 4 of 8
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

27

28

5

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is

available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). Therefore, plaintiff’s allegation that

defendants unlawfully seized and “deliberately [stole]” his thirty photographs does not give rise

to a claim for relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Complaint, §§

IV, V.)

5. Due Process - Rules Violation Report

Plaintiff also appears to be challenging the issuance of a Rules Violation Report. 

The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). In order to

state a cause of action for deprivation of procedural due process, a plaintiff must first establish

the existence of a liberty interest for which the protection is sought. The Due Process Clause

itself does not confer on inmates a liberty interest in being confined in the general prison

population instead of segregation. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983). In Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), the Supreme Court abandoned earlier case law which had held

that states created protectable liberty interests by way of mandatory language in prison

regulations. Id. at 481-84. Instead, the Court adopted an approach in which the existence of a

liberty interest is determined by focusing on the nature of the deprivation. Id. In doing so, the

Court held that liberty interests created by prison regulations are limited to freedom from

restraint which “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484. 

Where a protectable liberty interest exists, the Supreme Court has set out the following

procedural due process requirements for disciplinary detention of a prisoner: (1) written notice of

the charges; (2) at least 24 hours between the time the prisoner receives written notice and the

time of the hearing, so that the prisoner may prepare his defense; (3) a written statement by the

fact finders of the evidence they rely on and reasons for taking disciplinary action; (4) the right of

the prisoner to call witnesses in his defense, when permitting him to do so would not be unduly

hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (5) legal assistance to the prisoner

where the prisoner is illiterate or the issues presented are legally complex. Wolff v. McDonnell,

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 5 of 8
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

27

28

6

418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). 

6. Supervisory Liability

The Court notes that Plaintiff has named persons who may be supervisors at the

institution or within the Department of Corrections. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under Section 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). To state a claim

for relief under Section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege

some facts that would support a claim that supervisory Defendants either: personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts

must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County

Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

7. Inmate Appeals

The Court notes that Plaintiff has named individuals as they are involved in the inmate

appeals process. 

There is no constitutional right to an inmate appeals process. The Ninth Circuit has held

that Prisoners do not have a "separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

procedure." Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003), citing Mann v. Adams, 855

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). The non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to properly

implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise

constitutional concerns. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). See also, Buckley

v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir.1991); Azeez

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 6 of 8
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

27

28

1

Plaintiff should also refrain from “incorporating by reference” every fact previously alleged and pertaining

to every Defendant named. Plaintiff should be brief and yet specific as to each Defendant, the acts or omissions

giving rise to a violation and how that violated his rights. 

7

v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 10 (N.D.Ill.1982) ("[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural

right only, it does not confer any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise

to a protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth

amendment"). A failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley,

supra. State regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the

federal constitution only if those regulations pertain to "freedom from restraint" that "imposes

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison

life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995).

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the instant Complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file a first Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to

do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically list each constitutional violation and

state how each Defendant is involved. Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading.1 As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 7 of 8
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

27

28

8

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06755-LJO -SMS Document 10 Filed 04/12/06 Page 8 of 8