Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01880/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01880-2/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

ROY LEE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1880 MCE KJM P

vs.

ARAMARK FOOD SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 11, 2007, the court dismissed his complaint, but gave him leave

to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 9, 2008. 

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-

Case 2:07-cv-01880-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 04/14/08 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

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; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007). In order to survive

dismissal for failure to state a claim 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.” Id. However, “[s]pecific facts are not

necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, U.S. , 127 S.Ct.

2197, 2200 (2007). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true

the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

As in his original complaint, plaintiff claims he broke a tooth when he bit down

on a rock located in his portion of beans. He sues the Solano County Sheriff’s Department and

Aramark Food Services but, as in his original complaint, he fails to tie either of the named

defendants to his injury apart from their status as supervisors. This is insufficient. Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises only upon a

showing of personal participation by the defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat

superior liability under section 1983”).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Case 2:07-cv-01880-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 04/14/08 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

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 14, 2008. 

2

john1880.56

Case 2:07-cv-01880-MCE -KJM Document 10 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 3