Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05011/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05011-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM VAN TREESE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HUMBOLDT COUNTY JAIL

MEDICAL STAFF, SHERIFF GARY

PHILP, DR. BURLSON, M.D., 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 06-5011MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

On August 21, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at San

Quentin State Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while he was

housed at the Humboldt County Jail in 2004. By separate order filed concurrently herewith,

plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

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

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

dismiss any claims that 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. See id.

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.

Case 3:06-cv-05011-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 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

§ 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 violation was

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,

48 (1988).

Plaintiff alleges that in 2004, an inmate with tuberculosis was placed in the same jail

dormitory as plaintiff and that jail “medical staff” did not move said inmate out of the

dormitory after learning of his medical condition. Plaintiff further alleges he was thereby

exposed to the tuberculosis bacterium and has had to take medication as a result. Plaintiff

has not alleged, however, how the two individual defendants named in the complaint, Sheriff

Gary Philp and Dr. Burlson, M.D., were involved in the decisions to place and retain the

infected inmate in plaintiff’s dormitory, nor does he identify who among the jail “medical

staff” might be responsible for these decisions. 

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each

individual defendant’s conduct that proximately caused a violation of his rights. Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Moreover, naming Sheriff Philp, on the apparent

theory that he is responsible for the actions and omissions of his employees and subordinates,

will not relieve plaintiff of his obligation to plead his claims with specificity. It is well

settled that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. See Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding liability may not be based solely on fact defendant

is generally responsible for actions or omissions of another). Finally, naming “Humboldt

County Jail Medical Staff” does not suffice because a defendant cannot be held liable based

solely on his membership in a group; rather, a showing of his individual participation in

unlawful conduct is required. See Chuman v. Wright, 76 F.3d 292, 294-95 (9th Cir. 1996)

(holding instruction permitting jury to find individual liable as member of team, without any

showing of individual wrongdoing, is improper).

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the complaint to identify, if possible, the jail

officials involved in his alleged exposure to tuberculosis, and to set forth specific facts

showing each such defendant’s actions proximately caused said exposure.

Case 3:06-cv-05011-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders as follows:

1. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty (30) days

of the date this order is filed, plaintiff may file an AMENDED COMPLAINT, using the

court’s form civil rights complaint, in order to cure the deficiencies explained above. 

Plaintiff shall complete the form, and include in the caption both the case number of this

action, No. C 06-5011 MMC (PR), and the phrase “AMENDED COMPLAINT.” 

An amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and may not incorporate by

reference any parts of the original complaint. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811,

814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer

defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992). These rules govern

actions filed by pro se litigants as well as litigants represented by counsel. See King v.

Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, if plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint to include new claims and

new defendants, he must file an amended complaint, which amended complaint also must

include any claims from the original complaint he wishes to preserve. 

If plaintiff fails to timely file an amended complaint in conformity with this order, the

action will proceed only on the basis of the first, third and fourth claims in the complaint.

2. It is plaintiffs’ responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

informed of any 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, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 5, 2007 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05011-MMC Document 7 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3