Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05331/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05331-3/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

DERRICK R. STRONG,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5331 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

FOLSOM STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint, filed in response to an

earlier order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff, an inmate in the

custody of the California Department of Corrections at CSP Corcoran, brings this civil rights

action against unidentified correctional officers employed by the Department of Corrections at

Corcoran State Prison. 

In the original complaint, plaintiff set forth vague allegations of excessive force. 

In the order dismissing the complaint, the court advised plaintiff that in order to state a claim, he

must identify specific individuals, and charge those individuals with conduct that states a claim

for excessive force. Plaintiff was specifically advised that the Eleventh Amendment prohibits

Case 1:04-cv-05331-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/25/06 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

suits against the prison itself.

In the first amended complaint, plaintiff levels vague allegations of fabricated

evidence in a disciplinary hearing. In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United

States Supreme Court applied the doctrine articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487

(1994), to prison disciplinary hearings. In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for

damages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 if a judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction

or sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously

been invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. In applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court

held that a claim challenging the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a

claim seeks money damages and no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature

of the inmate’s allegations are such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

result of the prison disciplinary hearing. 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if

successful, would invalidate the duration of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a

habeas corpus petition and not under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

Although the specific facts of Balisok involved allegations of deceit and bias on

the part of a hearing officer, the Court’s reasoning applies to any claim which, if proven, would

have the effect of invalidating the result of a disciplinary hearing. Here, plaintiff alleges that he

was convicted on fabricated evidence. Such an allegation necessarily implies the invalidity of

the conviction. Such a claim therefore does not accrue until plaintiff’s disciplinary conviction

has been reversed, expunged or otherwise invalidated. 

Further, plaintiff fails to identify any particular individuals, or charge those

particular individuals with conduct that would establish a claim for a civil rights violation. 

To warrant relief under the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must allege and show that

Case 1:04-cv-05331-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/25/06 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

defendant’s acts or omissions caused the deprivation of his constitutionally protected rights. 

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to state a claim under § 1983, a

plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person was acting under color of state law at the time the

complained of act was committed; and (2) that person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights,

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt

v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). 

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

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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint vague and conclusory. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy,

a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support

plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ.

P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Case 1:04-cv-05331-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/25/06 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

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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 (9th Cir.

1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux

v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

pleading 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

second amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." 

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 24, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05331-MJS Document 18 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4