Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05297/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05297-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEOPRIC BLOODSAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM L. CAREY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5297 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 8)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT

TO SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM

Theopric Bloodsaw (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed his first complaint on February 17, 2004. On April 26, 2005, the original

complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 23,

2005, naming Tom Carey, J. Velasco, Dr. Vo, J. Gentry, Elissague, J. Langham, Lt. Huebner

as Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that these individuals engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice,

and claims that his conviction was unlawful. Plaintiff also alleges several claims against the

individual Defendants.

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

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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

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

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 the Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint states simply “A conspiracy, one agreement etc. Obstruction of

justice...,” cites several amendments and statutes, then names the Defendants individually with

one or more complaint against each. Plaintiff fails to give any facts supporting his claims. In his

request for relief, Plaintiff asks for “due process of law and justice served that is the only way I

will get my freedom back...”

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

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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 1Amended Complaint Doc 8-1 page 3, of 40 (First page three of amended complaint)

3

(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 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, the plaintiff must link each

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

plaintiff’s federal rights.

In this case, Plaintiff again fails to link any of the named Defendants to an act or omission

that resulted in the violation of his federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff has simply listed

allegations without any factual information to substantiate them. For example, Plaintiff states:

“Tom Carey without lawful authority seizing and confining another. J. Velasco provoking,

harassing, threatening, racially biased, Dr. Vo threatening inadequate medical care, J Gentry

procuring, harassing, Elissague procuring, offering and preparing false evidence, J. Langham

procuring, preparing false evidence, H. Huebner procuring, unlawful authority.”1

2. Conspiracy

In the context of conspiracy claims brought pursuant to section 1983, a complaint must

“allege [some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” Buckey v.

County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must allege that defendants conspired or

acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. Sykes

v. State of California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974).

Plaintiff has again not alleged any facts supporting the existence of a conspiracy between

Defendants. Further, Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that Defendants violated his

constitutional rights. In order to state a cognizable claim for relief for conspiracy, Plaintiff must

establish that Defendants conspired to violate an underlying constitutional right.

Although Plaintiff attaches documents to his complaint, they do not clarify his claims for

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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 2Document 8-1, page 4 of 40 (second page 3 in amended complaint)

4

relief and consist of a printout of his criminal record, excerpts of medical records, chronos, and

inmate appeal forms. However, nowhere does Plaintiff attempt to clarify his claims for relief. 

Plaintiff has been informed that the court cannot peruse the attachments and try to formulate a

claim for relief based on documents submitted. The burden to plead a cognizable claim for relief

that puts the Defendants on notice of the charges against them is on the Plaintiff. 

Moreover, Plaintiff is not required to offer evidence at this stage in the proceeding and

should refrain from submitting attachments. It is not appropriate to attach exhibits to a complaint.

See Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Originals or copies of evidence (i.e., prison or

medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) should not be submitted until the course of litigation

brings the evidence into question (for example, on a Motion for Summary Judgement, at trial, or

when requested by the court). Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s claim is alleging criminal

conspiracy, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not an appropriate forum for such a

claim. 

3. Habeas claim

When a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of his custody, or raises a

constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his sole federal remedy is a

writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d

874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking damages for an

allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a

federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or

sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.” Id. at 488. 

In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes several claims about the validity of his

conviction2. A §1983 claim, however, is not appropriate under these circumstances. Plaintiff’s

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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

sole remedy for this claim through a writ of habeas corpus.

4. Conclusory allegations

The pleading of mere legal conclusions without further specification is insufficient to

state a valid claim. Plaintiff must allege, with at least some degree of particularity, overt acts

which defendants engaged in which support plaintiff's claim. Sherman v. Yakahi, 549 F.2d 1287,

1290 (9th Cir.1977). If Plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint he will need to state specific

facts about the circumstances surrounding the alleged constitutional violations rather than merely

stating conclusory allegations. Plaintiff may refer to Section 1 (linkage requirement) for further

clarification. 

C. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s 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 Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he

wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the 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 complaint must specifically 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. 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 claim and the

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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

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

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure to

state any claims on which relief can be granted;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

form;

3. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

file an SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. 

Plaintiff’s failure to file a Second Amended Complaint in compliance with this order will

result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a

claim on which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 06/12/06 Page 6 of 6