Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01896/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01896-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH POPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TERRI McDONALD, et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1896 DAD

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff has consented to the magistrate’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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 $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without 

funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff is obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income 

credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected and 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).

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 5 Filed 02/27/14 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

27

28

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.

When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, to survive dismissal for failure to 

state a claim, a pro se complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and 

conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have 

facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair 

notice to each defendant and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. 

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). A plaintiff must allege with 

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 5 Filed 02/27/14 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

27

28

3

some degree of particularity the overt acts that each defendant committed that allegedly form the 

basis of a claim. Id. 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). 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). 

Here, plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to the excessive use of force in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment. He avers that claim against three named defendants and “John/Jane Doe 

... escort officers[.]” (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 3.) The defendants named by plaintiff are the 

director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the warden at 

High Desert State Prison (HDSP) and the associate warden at HDSP. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges

that the named defendants are liable for having “acknowledged [the constitutional violation] on 

the appeal/grievance.” (Id. at 3) Plaintiff does not claim that any of the three named defendants

was personally involved in the alleged use of excessive force.

Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against any of the three named defendants. It is 

well established that a state actor in a supervisory position cannot be held liable in a civil rights 

action for the constitutional violations of a subordinate. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir.1989). To state a claim against a supervisor, a plaintiff must aver some causal 

connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the violation. See Redman v. County of San 

Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.1991). Here, plaintiff avers only that the named defendants

effectively approved of the alleged violations through the conclusions they rendered in the 

grievance process. “[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific grievance 

procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003). “Therefore, plaintiff cannot 

state a cognizable civil rights claim against defendants . . . based solely on their roles in denying a 

prison grievance.” Johnson v. Hill, No. 2:10-cv-2522 KJN P, 2010 WL 4386722 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 

Oct. 28, 2010).

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 5 Filed 02/27/14 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

27

28

4

Plaintiff ascribes the specific acts of excessive force to “John/Jane Doe . . . escort 

officers[.]” (Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 3.) “As a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a 

defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.1980). However, 

“where the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, 

plaintiff should be given the opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown 

defendants[.]” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir.1990). The court cannot 

order service of a complaint on unknown defendants; it is therefore untenable to direct a pro se 

prisoner-plaintiff to the discovery process when the only potentially liable defendants are 

unknown. The appropriate course at this stage, therefore, is to allow plaintiff an opportunity to 

amend his complaint to include named defendants. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 

(9th Cir.2013).

If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must allege facts demonstrating how the 

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227, 229 (9th Cir. 1980). 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 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 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 $350.00 for this action. The fee 

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 without prejudice. 

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 5 Filed 02/27/14 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

27

28

5

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: February 26, 2014

hm

pope1896.14a.new

Case 2:13-cv-01896-KJM-DB Document 5 Filed 02/27/14 Page 5 of 5