Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00789/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00789-1/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

JAMES E. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0789 LKK DAD P

vs.

GARY ALLHISER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned in accordance

with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff’s complaint was not accompanied by the filing fee or an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. On April 21, 2006, plaintiff was granted thirty days to pay the fee or

file a properly completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to an extension of

time granted on May 26, 2006, plaintiff filed an in forma pauperis application on June 15, 2006. 

The application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff’s request for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis will therefore be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff was without funds for six months prior to the

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 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

filing of this action and was without funds as of June 9, 2006. Accordingly, the court will not

assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated to

make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his

prison trust account. These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency

to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the

$350.00 filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss 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) and (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.

Claims may 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 claims

that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). At screening, the court

accepts as true the allegations of the complaint. See Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees,

425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976). The court also construes the pleading in the light most favorable to

the plaintiff and resolves doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S.

411, 421 (1969).

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 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 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 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). 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). 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).

In the original complaint filed in the present case, plaintiff has sued Gary Allhiser,

a correctional officer employed at California Correctional Center (“CCC”) in Susanville; Roy A.

Castro, warden of CCC when plaintiff’s claims arose; and Denise Kendall, plaintiff’s appellate

attorney. Plaintiff alleges as follows: defendant Allhiser violated plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by issuing a serious rule violation report against plaintiff on May 25, 2001,

based on plaintiff’s refusal to cut his facial hair; unspecified acts by defendant Allhiser

“amounted to sexual harassment”; defendant Castro refused to correct the ongoing problem

between plaintiff and defendant Allhiser; defendant Kendall assisted the state in “abusing

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 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

process.” Plaintiff seeks millions of dollars in damages, “a press agent and release,” and

injunctive relief for unspecified injuries plaintiff believes to be irreparable.

On July 12, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to amend in which he seeks permission

to add defendants not named in his original complaint. He asserts that he is entitled to amend

under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Attached to plaintiff’s motion is a

proposed amended complaint in which “plaintiffs” are described as “state prisoners incarcerated

at Kern Valley State Prison.” Plaintiff alleges that the relief he seeks will benefit the class as a

whole. In addition to the three original defendants, the amended complaint lists the following

new defendants: CC-I Lane; Nate Dill; an unnamed IRS agent; five unidentified corporate

defendants; unidentified sheriffs and deputies; the secretary of the treasury; highway traffic safety

administrator; “Chrysler Cooperate”; director of corrections; board of education; twenty persons

sued under fictitious names.

Plaintiff may amend his pleading once as a matter of course before a responsive

pleading is served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). However, plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint

adds claims wholly unrelated to those alleged in the original pleading. Plaintiff’s new claims did

not arise at CCC, and the proposed new defendants do not reside within the Sacramento Division

of the court. Plaintiff may not add to this case claims that arose within the Fresno Division of

this court. If plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies on claims concerning Kern Valley

State Prison, he may present those claims in a case filed in the Fresno Division. 

Plaintiff is advised that a non-attorney proceeding pro se cannot represent other

parties. Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed in this action only on his individual claims. Plaintiff

is also advised that he cannot proceed against defendants who are not state actors. Plaintiff

cannot state § 1983 claims against federal employees acting under federal law or against

corporate defendants acting privately. Although lawyers are licensed by the state, they are not

government officials merely because they are lawyers. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S.

312, 319 n.9 (1981). An attorney appointed by the state to represent an individual in state court

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 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

“does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as

counsel.” 454 U.S. at 318-19, 325.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend will be granted, but the proposed amended

complaint will not be filed. Plaintiff will be granted thirty days to file an amended complaint

alleging only claims that arose at CCC. Plaintiff may not present the pleading as a class action. 

The amended complaint must allege facts demonstrating that the acts complained of resulted in a

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th

Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant

was involved in the alleged violation of rights. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

unless there is an affirmative link between the defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation of

rights. See 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).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to

prior pleadings. See Local Rule 15-220. The court cannot refer to the prior pleadings in order to

make the amended complaint complete. The amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and the proposed amended complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967). In an amended complaint, as if it were the first complaint filed in the case, each defendant

must be named in the caption of the complaint, and each claim and the involvement of each

defendant must be sufficiently alleged in the statement of claim. Plaintiff must submit his

amended complaint on a § 1983 complaint form.

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions for injunctive relief. In these motions

plaintiff seeks orders concerning the conditions of his current confinement at Kern Valley State

Prison. Such motions are not properly before this court and will be denied without prejudice to

their renewal in a case or cases properly filed in the Fresno Division of the court after plaintiff

has exhausted available administrative remedies. Plaintiff is informed that a motion for

injunctive relief must be accompanied by a brief on all relevant legal issues and by supporting

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 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

declarations, including declarations showing that irreparable injury will occur if the motion is not

granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; Local Rule 65-231.

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

1. Plaintiff’s June 15, 2006 application to proceed in forma pauperis (docketed as

#10) is granted.

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

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s April 26, 2006 motion for injunctive relief (#5), June 8, 2006

motion for permanent injunction and request for attorney fees (#8), June 8, 2006 motion for

permanent injunctive and declaratory relief (#9), June 22, 2006 motion for injunctive and

declaratory relief (#11), and August 14, 2006 motion for injunctive relief (#13) are denied.

4. Plaintiff’s July 12, 2006 motion for leave to amend (#12) is granted.

5. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and this order; the amended complaint must be submitted on a form, must bear the

case number assigned to this case, and must be titled “Amended Complaint”; failure to file an

amended complaint that complies with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: November 28, 2006.

DAD:13

smit0789.14a

Case 2:06-cv-00789-LKK -DAD Document 14 Filed 11/29/06 Page 6 of 6