Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02736/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02736-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN LEE HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUSTIN JOURDAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former county jail inmate, proceeding pro se, with this civil rights action 

seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 28, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended 

complaint as of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(a)(1). 

On March 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint. Plaintiff’s 

motion was not, however, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint. As a litigant 

proceeding in forma pauperis, plaintiff’s pleadings are subject to evaluation by this court pursuant 

to the in forma pauperis statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because plaintiff did not submit a 

proposed amended complaint, the court is unable to evaluate it. Thus, plaintiff’s motion is denied 

without prejudice to its renewal, accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint.

In her motion to amend, plaintiff seeks to amend to add John Does now identified by 

name, to name Super 8 motel employees as defendants, and to add an alleged wrongful eviction 

claim. 

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 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

27

28

2

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

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) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 

liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 

affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 

demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “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)

(no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 

438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), 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) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 

participation is insufficient).

Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 18(a). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. 

The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as alternate 

claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing 

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 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

27

28

3

party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated 

Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of 

morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but 

also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous 

suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of 

the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of 

defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are 

satisfied).

To the extent that the now-identified John Does were involved in the alleged excessive 

force claim raised against defendant Jourdan, plaintiff should include such individuals in any 

proposed second amended complaint. However, Super 8 motel employees do not act under color 

of state law. In addition, plaintiff’s claim of wrongful eviction is not a constitutional violation,

and is not related to the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim raised against defendant 

Jourdan. Thus, plaintiff should not seek to amend to add such employees or the alleged eviction 

claim in any second amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a motion to amend accompanied by a proposed second amended 

complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 

227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second amended 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). Furthermore, 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 addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

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

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 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

27

28

4

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 a second amended complaint, the 

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended 

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. Thus, plaintiff should include her allegations as to defendant Jourdan in any 

proposed second amended complaint.

Because it appears plaintiff seeks to file a second amended complaint, the court will not 

order service of process on defendant Jourdan. However, because plaintiff has provided the 

documents for service of process for defendant Jourdan, plaintiff must file a motion to amend and 

proposed second amended complaint within thirty days. If plaintiff fails to file such motion, this 

case will proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint, and the court will order service of process on 

defendant Jourdan. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 14) is denied without prejudice; 

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall renew the motion to amend 

and submit a proposed second amended complaint; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights 

complaint.

Dated: March 27, 2015

/hoff2736.10b

Case 2:14-cv-02736-MCE-KJN Document 15 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 4