Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00755/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00755-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DONN TODD, No. CIV.S-05-0755 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

CAPTAIN CHRIS DAY, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302(21),

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 7
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

time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. 

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, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1831-32 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d

1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). Under this standard, a court shall

dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably

meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly

baseless. See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S. Ct. at 1833; see also

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. 

Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S. Ct. 2229, 2232

(1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99,

102 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d

1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the

complaint. Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738,

740, 96 S. Ct. 1848, 1850 (1976). Furthermore, the court must

construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. See Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (1969). 

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 7
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 American River College is one of the colleges within the

defendant district. 

3

The court finds the allegations in the complaint so vague

and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current

action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 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.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet these requirements.

While the complaint is difficult to decipher, the named defendants

include the Los Rios Community College School District Police

Department, its Chief of Police Rickey Jones and Captain Chris Day. 

Also named are the Los Rios Community College School District and

Marie B. Smith and Celia Esposito-Noy, employees of the district. 

The complaint appears to arise out of an alleged crime at American

River College,1 where plaintiff apparently was a student. The

complaint alleges that plaintiff witnessed an individual identified

as “Mr. Soltyz” assault his wife, “Mrs. Soltyz,” with a dangerous

weapon. According to the complaint, plaintiff attempted to make a

report to responding American River College police officers but was

rebuffed as a result of what the complaint characterizes as “police

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 of 7
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

misconduct.” While plaintiff ultimately was able to make a report of

the alleged assault, he next became frustrated with the actions of

defendants Jones, Day, Smith and Esposito-Noy as he attempted to

report the alleged misconduct by the American River College police

officer. In this regard the complaint contains only hodge-podge

allegations of harassment, retaliation, invasion of privacy,

concealment of a crime, criminal misconduct, conspiracy, and the

like. However, other than these general assertions the precise

nature of plaintiff’s intended claims are unclear. Thus, the court

finds that the complaint’s allegations do not amount to a short plain

statement of a claim showing that plaintiff is entitled to relief or

set forth any factual allegations giving rise to federal

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), (2). 

The court recognizes that the complaint makes reference to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various constitutional rights (and an assortment

of other federal and state statutes). However, to the extent

plaintiff is attempting to bring a § 1983 action the complaint does

not allege how the conduct complained of has resulted in a

deprivation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the

Constitution or federal law by a person acting under color of state

law. L.W. v. Grubbs, 974 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992); Lopez v.

Dept. of Health Serv., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1991). The Civil

Rights Act 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

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 7
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

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 or link 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel such as Chief of Police

Rickey Jones and Captain Chris Day are generally not liable under 

§ 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of

respondeat superior. Therefore, when a named defendant holds a

supervisory position, the causal link between the defendant 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). “A supervisor is only

liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the

supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the

violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)(citing Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird

Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1984)). Vague

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 5 of 7
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

personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v.

Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. Nonetheless, the court will grant leave to file an

amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he

must set forth the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends. Moreover, the amended complaint must include clear and

concise factual allegations describing the events which underlie

plaintiff’s claims.

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

complaint 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. Any

amended pleading which fails to provide the necessary factual

description will likely be dismissed.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to file an amended

complaint which complies with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed; and

3. Plaintiff is granted twenty (20) days from the date of

service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice;

the amended complaint, if any, must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”. Plaintiff must

file an original and two copies of the amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 23, 2005.

DAD:th

Ddadl\orders.prose\todd0755.ifp.lta

Case 2:05-cv-00755-DFL-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 7 of 7