Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03820/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD BOLLING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

B. CURRY, Warden; LINA

MANGLIEMOT, RN; BARBARA

AMRHEIM, SRN II; J. ABOYTES and P.

G. DENNIS, Appeals Coordinators; and

N. GRANNIS, Chief, Inmate Appeals

Branch, 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-3820 PJH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE

TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility, has filed a pro se civil rights

complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary;

Case 4:07-cv-03820-PJH Document 4 Filed 04/08/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations

omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual

allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief'

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief

above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65

(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief

that is plausible on its face." Id. at 1986-87. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated, and (2) that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the

color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Plaintiff alleges that he had a severe headache on a weekend and asked defendant

nurse Mangliemot to see a doctor. She told him he could not on a weekend because

Mangliemot did not “think I was going to die,” and to come back the next day. The

attachments show that he has since been diagnosed as having had a stroke. He says that

the result is slowness of speech, impaired memory, and slow thought processes. 

This may well be sufficient to state a claim against Mangliemot, but because plaintiff

has not alleged any specific facts as to what the other defendants allegedly did that violated

his rights, the complaint must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff should bear in mind that there is no respondeat superior liability in section

1983 cases such as this one – that is, a person cannot be held liable simply because he or

she is the superior or supervisor of someone who did violate the plaintiff’s rights. See 

Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). To state a “plausible’ claim he must

allege facts regarding each person who is named as a defendant sufficient to “raise the

///

Case 4:07-cv-03820-PJH Document 4 Filed 04/08/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 right to relief above a speculative level.” See Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964-65 (citations

omitted). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons,

1. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an

amended complaint, as indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The

amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and

the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended complaint

completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must include in it all the claims he

wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). He may

not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to amend within

the designated time will result in the dismissal of these claims.

2. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. 

Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2008. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\BOLLING3820.dwlta.wpd 

Case 4:07-cv-03820-PJH Document 4 Filed 04/08/08 Page 3 of 3