Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00056/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00056-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

MARK A. McFADZEAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-00056-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

BIVENS CLAIMS AGAINST THEM

(Doc. 33)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff Mark A. McFadzean (“plaintiff”) is a formerfederal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by

federal actors. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed August 14,

2006, against defendants Schultz, Gant, Booth, and Moorhead for depriving plaintiff of his protected

liberty interest in remaining free from segregation, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and against defendants Willis, Shojari, Sielicki, and

Mettry for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. On August 17, 2007, defendants Schultz, Gant, Booth, Moorhead, Willis,

Shojari, Sielicki, and Mettry (“defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them in their

official capacities for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not file a response. Local Rule 78-230(m). 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 44 Filed 10/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

II. Legal Standard

“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal . . . is the complaint.” Schneider v. California

Dept. of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 n.1 (9th Cir. 1998). In considering a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim, 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 party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader's favor.

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, reh’g denied, 396 U.S. 869 (1969). The federal system

is one of notice pleading. Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1126 (2002). “Rule

8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited exceptions,” none of

which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002);

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a

statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

The Court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any

set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Id. at 514. Discovery and summary

judgment motions - not motions to dismiss - “define disputed facts” and “dispose of unmeritorious

claims.” Id. at 512. “‘The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the

pleadings that a recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.’” Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 755 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also

Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004) (“‘Pleadings need suffice only to put the

opposing party on notice of the claim . . . .’” (quoting Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 977 (9th Cir.

2001))). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears

beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim 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). 

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 44 Filed 10/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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 A Bivens claim is not available against the United States. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Cato 1

v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1995). 

3

III. Discussion and Order

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges Bivens claims against defendants in their

official and individual capacities. (Doc. 22, pgs. 3-5.) While federal officers may be held liable for

damages for the violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights, Correctional Serv. Corp. v. Malesko,

534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 519 (2001) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971)), Bivens claims are only available against

defendants in their individual capacities, Vaccaro v. Dobre, 81 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 1996). 

1

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the official capacityBivens claims against them,

filed August 17, 2007, is HEREBY GRANTED, and plaintiff’s official capacity claims are

dismissed, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00056-DCB Document 44 Filed 10/16/07 Page 3 of 3