Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05699/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05699-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAX JOSEPH LACIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPT CORRECTIONS, 

et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5699 OWW LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 11.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Max Joseph Lacio (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant

action on March 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The

Case was transferred to this Court and received on May 14, 2004. On October 14, 2005, the

Court screened the Complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on December 30, 2005, which consists of one hundred seven (107) pages, including

exhibits. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 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

27

28

2

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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). 

B. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges generally that his constitutional rights were denied. However, Plaintiff

provides at least twenty pages of narrative and names approximately 20 Defendants, not

including Does 1-25, which he later references in the body of his Complaint. Despite being

informed of the legal authority relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations and the linkage requirement, the

form of Plaintiff’s amended complaint does not allow the court to determine whether Plaintiff

alleges cognizable claims for relief. The Court will inform the Plaintiff of the defects below.

C. ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

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 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

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 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

27

28

3

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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

The Court informed Plaintiff of the linkage requirement in the previous Order dismissing

with leave to amend. However, because Plaintiff has not clearly organized his Amended

Complaint in a fashion so as to ease the Court’s screening duty, the Court cannot determine

whether Plaintiff has adequately linked the named Defendants to acts or omissions giving rise to

his claims for relief. 

First, Plaintiff lists each named Defendant and provides information as to who this

individual is and what their responsibilities are with respect to their employment. This is

unnecessary information. Plaintiff then, in a narrative fashion, describes numerous encounters he

had with certain individuals named in the case. Plaintiff then lists his “Theories of Liability” but

fails to provide specific facts as to what each Defendant did or did not do that rose to a violation

of each “theory” and, as a result, he fails to link the named Defendants to the acts or omissions

constituting the alleged violations. 

A plaintiff’s complaint must satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8(a), which calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need

only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely

upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

In this instance, Plaintiff’s Complaint is neither “short and plain” and is not organized in

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 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

27

28

4

such a fashion to put the Defendants on sufficient notice of the allegations against them. In

Amending his Complaint, Plaintiff should refrain from providing the Court with unnecessary

background material concerning the named Defendants employment. Each claim for relief

should be clearly set forth and immediately include a brief statement of facts supporting the

allegation and linking a named defendant to the alleged violation. It is insufficient for Plaintiff to

state, for example, “Adequate Medical Care,” then write only that the Defendants violated his

rights or “incorporate by reference” everything mentioned in the document. Plaintiff must

provide facts as to how each defendant violated his rights. He may not simply tell a story, list his

claims for relief as he has done, and then expect the Court to figure out which paragraph goes

with which claim for relief. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to make his claims for relief and

supporting facts clear. 

In addition, despite being given information as to who can be properly named as a

Defendant, Plaintiff continues to name improper defendants. The State of California is not a

“person” within the meaning of Section 1983 and cannot be named as a Defendant in this action. 

Plaintiff was informed of the “person” requirement in the Court’s prior order. Plaintiff also 

references Does 1-25 as Defendants but again does not link each Doe Defendant to an act or

omission giving rise to liability. Plaintiff may not simply pull a number of Does out of a hat and

expect to hold that many unnamed individuals liable because they are named. Plaintiff must also 

allege specific facts against each Doe defendant named that give rise to a violation in order to

state a cognizable claim for relief. 

It is also inappropriate to attach exhibits to a complaint. See Rule 8, Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Further, the Court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence. 

Originals or copies of evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) should

not be submitted until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on

a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the court). At this point, the

submission of evidence is premature as the Plaintiff is only required to state a prima facie claim

for relief. 

Finally, because Plaintiff did not complete the form Complaint, Plaintiff does not provide

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 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

27

28

5

any information regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Plaintiff is informed that

pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) of 1995, “[n]o action shall be brought

with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative

remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Section 1997e(a)

exhaustion requirement applies to all prisoner suits relating to prison life. Porter v. Nussle, 435

U.S. 516, 532 (2002). Prisoners must complete the prison’s administrative process, regardless of

the relief sought by the prisoner and regardless of the relief offered by the process, as long as the

administrative process can provide some sort of relief on the complaint stated. Booth v. Churner,

532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311

F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). Thus, Plaintiff should complete the form Complaint and

in his Second Amended Complaint refrain from including allegations wherein the administrative

grievance process was not complete before he filed this action. For the same reason, Plaintiff

should refrain from including violations that arose after he filed this action for they cannot meet

the requirement that the claims have been exhausted prior to filing.

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not contain any claims upon

which relief can be granted under § 1983 against any of the named Defendants. The Court will

provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the

deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

Again, Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second Amended Complaint how the conditions

complained of resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9 Cir. 1980). The Second Amended Complaint must specifically state how each th

defendant is involved. Further, 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 (9 Cir. 1980); th

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that any Amended Complaint

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 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

27

28

6

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. th

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference

the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

D. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within THIRTY

(30) DAYS from the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a Second

Amended Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary

dismiss the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05699-LJO -GSA Document 12 Filed 01/11/07 Page 6 of 6