Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02548-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS SOLIS ARREOLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2548 DFL GGH P

vs.

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. On December 15, 2005, the United States

District Court for the Central District of California transferred this action to this court.

Although plaintiff has paid the filing fee, the court may screen his complaint. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Named as defendants are Roderick Hickman and the California

Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). Plaintiff alleges that he received inadequate

medical care while housed at California State Prison-Solano. As relief, he seeks money

damages.

In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) defendant

was acting under color of state law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2)

defendant's conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/11/06 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

2

Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48

(1988). Defendant CCPOA is not a state agency. Therefore, defendant CCPOA is not a state

actor. Accordingly, the claims against this defendant are dismissed. 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)(at any time court may dismiss action which fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted). 

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. The statute 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 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 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). 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).

Plaintiff does not allege how defendant Hickman was involved in the alleged

deprivations. It appears that plaintiff is basing defendant Hickman’s liability on the theory of

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/11/06 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

3

respondeat superior. Accordingly, the claims against this defendant are dismissed. 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he should name as defendants those

individuals who provided him with inadequate medical care. Plaintiff must specifically describe

the conduct of each defendant which allegedly violated his constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed

with thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; failure to comply with

this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.

DATED: 1/10/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

arr2548.ord

Case 2:05-cv-02548-JKS-GGH Document 4 Filed 01/11/06 Page 3 of 3