Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01393/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01393-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRYL O. STRICKLAND,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1393 LJO WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

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

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against

defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at Tehachapi. 

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this he suffered a broken jaw as a result of a slip and fall. 

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he slipped in water that had pooled on the ground as a result of

an overflowing water faucet. Plaintiff alleges that “the administrative people” waited too long

to repair the water faucet. 

To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. 

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

2

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the

complained of act was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

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

(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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

The Eighth Amendment provides that “cruel and unusual

 punishment [shall not be] inflicted.” “An Eighth Amendment claim that a prison official has

deprived inmates of humane conditions of confinement must meet two requirements, one

objective and the other subjective.” Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9 Cir.) cert. denied, th

514 U.S. 1065, (1995). The objective requirement is met if the prison official’s acts or

omissions deprived a prisoner of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Id.

(quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)). To satisfy the subjective prong, a

plaintiff must show more than mere inadvertence or negligence. Neither negligence nor gross

negligence will constitute deliberate indifference. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833, & n. 4; Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). The Farmer court concluded that “subjective recklesness as

used in the criminal law is a familiar and workable standard that is consistent with the Cruel and

Unusual Punishments Clause” and adopted this as the test for deliberate indifference under the

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

3

Eighth Amendment. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 839-40.

Here, Plaintiff alleges that there was a dangerous condition, but he fails to allege any

facts indicating that any of the named Defendants were aware of the condition, and acted with

disregard of that risk. As noted above, Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that Defendants

were more than negligent. 

Further, Plaintiff names as a defendant the Warden at CCI Tehachapi. A supervisor may

be liable under § 1983 only if there exists either “‘(1) his or her personal involvement in the

constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s

wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.’” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d

1435, 1446 (9 Cir. 1991)(quoting Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also

th

MacKinney v. Nielsen, 69 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9 Cir. 1995). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any th

conduct on the part of the Warden, and fails to allege any facts indicating personal involvement.

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

(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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

4

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

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

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). 

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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first 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

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

5

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01393-LJO -WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 5 of 5