Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00784/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00784-0/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

DAMON HAMILTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0784 WBS GGH P

vs.

C/O FITZPATRICK, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

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). An initial partial filing fee of $5.51 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the

Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 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

2

preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be

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).

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.

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). 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). 

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 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

3

The complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Correctional

Officer (C/O) Fitzpatrick; Sergeant (Sgt.) Scotland; C/O Primm; C/O Rosario; Sgt. Guillory;

Lieutenant (Lt.) Young, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

As to defendant Lt. Sandy, plaintiff simply alleges that she should be held liable

for the actions of those she supervises. Complaint, p. 3. 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). Defendant Sandy will be dismissed, but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend

within thirty days. 

As to defendant Lt. Blackwell, plaintiff contends that after defendant Blackwell

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 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

4

heard plaintiff explain his 602 grievance against several of the defendants named herein, that

Blackwell notified defendant C/O Primm that a 602 inmate appeal had been filed against him,

after which defendant Primm visited plaintiff, asking plaintiff “how we could fix this....” 

Complaint, p. 4. When plaintiff rejected defendant Primm’s request saying that he and other

officers had beat plaintiff up, Primm called plaintiff “a fucking liar and walked away.” Id.

Although plaintiff contends that defendant Blackwell failed to protect plaintiff

from threats and harassment, it does not appear the allegation that she simply informed a

correctional officer that an inmate grievance had been made against him rises to the level of a

violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Even assuming, defendant Primm later swore at

plaintiff after plaintiff rebuffed his efforts to have him drop the grievance, in order to state a

retaliation claim, a plaintiff must plead facts which suggest that retaliation for the exercise of

protected conduct was the “substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the defendant’s conduct. 

See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must

also plead facts which suggest an absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct he

contends was retaliatory. Pratt at 806 (citing Rizzo at 532). Verbal harassment alone is

insufficient to state a claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). 

However, even threats of bodily injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked

threat is not the equivalent of doing the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir.

1987). Mere conclusions of hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner must “allege

specific facts showing retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.”

Frazier v. Dubois, 922 F.2d 560, 562 (n. 1) (10th Cir. 1990). Defendant Blackwell will be

dismissed as a defendant, but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend within thirty days.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 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

5

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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board

of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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 15-220 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $5.51. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Correctionsand

Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Sandy and Blackwell are dismissed for the

reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the

date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action.

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 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

6

4. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor,

the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants.

DATED: 10/14/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hami0784.b1

Case 2:08-cv-00784-DAE Document 5 Filed 10/14/08 Page 6 of 6