Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02539/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02539-1/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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. SANSONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHOENING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-02539-EMC 

ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT

Docket Nos. 1, 10, 14

Richard M. Sansone, currently an inmate at the California Health Care Facility in 

Stockton, California, filed a pro se civil rights complaint seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

After filing his complaint, Mr. Sansone filed a letter stating that he wanted to file an amended 

complaint. (Docket No. 10.) Later, he filed a letter indicating a desire to add additional 

defendants. (Docket No. 14.) And later still, he filed several exhibits and requested that counsel 

be appointed for him. (Docket No. 15.) 

Mr. Sansone’s request to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. (Docket No. 10.) Mr. 

Sansone must file his amended complaint no later than October 28, 2016. The amended 

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

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. In light of the fact that he will be filing an amended 

complaint, the Court will wait for that document rather than conduct an initial review under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A on the original complaint. 

In preparing his amended complaint, Mr. Sansone should bear the following in mind. 

First, for each condition of confinement he contends is constitutionally deficient, he must allege 

the facts showing his entitlement to relief from one or more defendants. Second, Mr. Sansone

must be careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each defendant. He should not 

refer to them as a group (e.g. “the defendants”); rather, he should identify each involved defendant 

Case 3:16-cv-02539-EMC Document 17 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

by name and link each of them to his claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do 

that caused a violation of his constitutional rights. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th 

Cir. 1988) (liability may be imposed on individual defendant under § 1983 only if plaintiff can 

show that defendant proximately caused deprivation of federally protected right). There is no 

respondeat superior liability under section 1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is liable 

simply because he employs a person who has violated a plaintiff's rights. See Monell v. Dep't of 

Social Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A

supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the 

constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful 

conduct and the constitutional violation. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Third, the amended complaint will supersede the existing complaint and therefore must include a 

complete statement of Mr. Sansone’s claims; any claim or defendant not mentioned in the 

amended complaint will be deemed to have been dismissed. See generally Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc).

Mr. Sansone has requested that counsel be appointed to represent him in this action. A 

district court has the discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) to designate counsel to represent an 

indigent civil litigant in exceptional circumstances. See Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 

1331 (9th Cir. 1986). This requires an evaluation of both the likelihood of success on the merits 

and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal 

issues involved. See id. Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together 

before deciding on a request for counsel under § 1915(e)(1). It is simply too early to determine 

whether exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of counsel exist in this case. The 

request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. (Docket No. 14.) The denial is without prejudice 

to Mr. Sansone filing a new request for counsel after the Court screens his amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02539-EMC Document 17 Filed 09/23/16 Page 2 of 2