Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01769/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01769-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY W. BROWN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1769 FCD DAD P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, an inmate confined at the Santa Clara County Jail, filed a pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California. On July 27, 2007, the Northern District transferred the case to this court

where venue was deemed to be proper. 

On September 18, 2007, this court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis but denied his request for leave to amend his complaint without prejudice

because his request was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. On October 1,

2007, plaintiff filed a similar request for leave to amend his complaint together with a proposed

amended complaint. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment based on his complaint

and exhibits.

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 6
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

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

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

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2).

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 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a

complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it

must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must

accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421

(1969).

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 6
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

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed 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 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 are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him 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), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). 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).

In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he identifies as defendants ADA Coordinator

Lt. Dewhite, ADA Counselor Myers, Counselor R. Russell, Chief Deputy Warden S.R. Moore,

and DOES 1-20. He alleges in broad terms that on June 7, 2006, he was transferred to Deuel

Vocational Institution because San Quentin was not capable of housing inmates with the

disabilities from which he suffers. Plaintiff alleges that, per the Armstrong Remedial Plan,

disabled inmates who remain at reception centers for extended stays solely because of their

disabilities must be granted privileges that are available at mainline institutions. Plaintiff claims

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 3 of 6
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

generally that defendants denied him such privileges in violation of the Plan and concludes that

he is entitled to monetary damages. However, plaintiff’s brief and unilluminating amended

complaint contains no factual allegations regarding acts taken by the named defendants which he

claims resulted in a violation of his rights under the constitution or pursuant to federal law. In

fact, the complaint fails to allege facts with respect to any particular incident or action involving

the named defendants.

The allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint are so vague and conclusory that

the court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. 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 to the defendants and must allege facts that support 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 his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a)(2), his amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave

to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff elects to pursue this action by filing a second amended complaint, he is

advised that all defendants must be identified in the caption of his pleading and that all

defendants must be named, with position and place of employment, in the section of the form

designated for that purpose. In his amended complaint, plaintiff has referred to DOES 1-20. “As

a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie v.

Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir.1980). Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot order

service of a complaint on defendants not actually named in the second amended complaint. 

In the section of the form complaint in which the plaintiff is required to set forth a

brief statement of the facts of the case, he must describe how each defendant has deprived him of

his constitutional rights. Throughout plaintiff’s amended complaint, he has failed to allege any

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 4 of 6
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

specific causal link between the named defendants and his legal claims. 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). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not

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

In this regard, if he elects to proceed with this action plaintiff is advised that he

must clarify in his second amended complaint what constitutional or statutory right he believes

each defendant has violated. Plaintiff alleges that defendants have violated the Armstrong

Remedial Plan. However, allegations that defendants violated the Plan do not give rise to a

damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support a claim

that defendants violated federal law in some way. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make his second 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 previous complaints. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the previous

pleadings no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in his second amended

complaint, plaintiff must sufficiently allege each claim and the involvement of each defendant. 

Finally, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is both defective and premature. 

First, plaintiff’s motion fails to comply with Local Rule 56-260. In his brief motion, plaintiff

merely insists that he has shown by the evidence presented in his complaint that defendants were

at fault and he is entitled to the requested relief. However, under Local Rule 56-260, motions for

summary judgment must at least be accompanied by a “Statement of Undisputed Facts,”

enumerating discretely each of the specific material facts relied upon in support of the motion. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s motion is premature. As discussed above, plaintiff’s amended complaint

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 5 of 6
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

will be dismissed with further leave to amend because his allegations do not give rise to a

damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition, no defendants have been served or had an

opportunity to respond to plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment will be denied as defective and premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 1, 2007 request for leave to amend his complaint is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s October 1, 2007 amended complaint is dismissed.

3. 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; plaintiff’s second amended

complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second

Amended Complaint”; failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action.

5. Plaintiff’s October 1, 2007 motion for summary judgment is denied as

defective and premature.

DATED: March 6, 2008.

DAD:9

brow1769.14amd

Case 2:07-cv-01769-LDG Document 13 Filed 03/07/08 Page 6 of 6