Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01556/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01556-10/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

GREGORY ANDREW HALL, No. CIV S-05-1556-RRB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

C. PLILER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of

California local rules.

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Case 2:05-cv-01556-CMK Document 38 Filed 09/07/07 Page 1 of 4
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

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

Plaintiff’s complaint was previously screened and the court found service proper

for most of the defendants. However, there are two defendants, Minyard and Whelan, for whom

service was not found to be proper. The undersigned is recommending these defendants be

dismissed without leave to amend. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. 

See Monell v. Dep’t 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). 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). Rather, the

plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged

constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01556-CMK Document 38 Filed 09/07/07 Page 2 of 4
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

As to defendant Minyard, plaintiff’s complaint states he verbally threatened

plaintiff. Specifically, on page 8, plaintiff states:

On 2-28-02, the retaliation continued for trying to exercise my

rights to utilize the inmate appeal system, guards terrorized me, c/o

Minyard said “Hall, think, we’ll get you”! c/o Minyard was as

serious as a heart attack. ... On or about 3-24-02, c/o Minyard said

“I’ll have the Mexicans stab you”!

This is the only time defendant Minyard’s is mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint. The Ninth

Circuit has found mere threats are not sufficient to state a cause of action and “it trivializes the

eighth amendment to believe a threat constitutes a constitutional wrong.” Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d

923 (9th Cir. 1987). 

As to defendant Whelan, plaintiff claims, on page 7 of his complaint, that Dr.

Whelan “interviewed and denied another appeal [plaintiff] had on all mental health staff in [his]

case.” 

Plaintiff fails to offer any explanation, nor can he, as to how Dr. Whelan, in

denying his appeal, has violated any of plaintiff’s civil rights. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations

that Dr. Whelan disrespected his rights, is insufficient. 

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to the dismissal

of the these two defendants from this action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that defendants Minyard

and Whelan be dismissed from this action, without leave to amend plaintiff’s complaint.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01556-CMK Document 38 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 4
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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: September 6, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01556-CMK Document 38 Filed 09/07/07 Page 4 of 4