Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02414/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-02414-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISHMAEL JORDAN

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DAVE GRAZIANI, et. al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-2414 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 (“CRIPA”) and the

Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Napa State Hospital personnel

concerning the conditions of his confinement. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. On February 12, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The

court concludes that plaintiff’s amended complaint is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. Accordingly, the court will DISMISS the amended complaint with leave to amend

within thirty days of the date of this order. 

\\\

\\\

\\\ 

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

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

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. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a

constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844

F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a claim a

plaintiff must show a specific constitutional or federal guarantee safeguarding the

interests that have been invaded. See Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 697 (1976). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff contends that he is denied reasonable access to exercise, recreational

opportunities, adequate medical care and related services. Plaintiff claims that hospital

staff fail to provide the least restrictive environment to residents, including meaningful

educational opportunities with individualized education plans, adequate physical therapy

and behavioral services. See Amended Complaint at 3-5. 

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 3

Plaintiff also complains about the hospital staff’s conduct including: failing to provide

adequate food and shelter, failing to protect inmates from undue harm, failing to provide

adequate classification and supervision of patients, failing to provide access to the courts,

failing to provide sufficient access to exercise. See Amended Complaint at 6. Plaintiff

maintains that these conditions are unconstitutional in violation of the First, Fifth, Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the applicable

provisions of the California State Constitution. See Amended Complaint at 7. 

Plaintiff names the following defendants in his complaint: Dave Graziani,

Executive Director of Napa State Hospital (“NSH”); Jeffrey Zwerin, NSH medical

director; and Gary Walters, NSH clinical director. Plaintiff contends that he was not

informed, prior to entering his insanity plea, that he could be subjected to the

unconstitutional conditions and deprivations at issue in his complaint. Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief, along with punitive and compensatory damages. See

Amended Complaint at 2-3. 

Plaintiff’s claims fail at the outset because plaintiff does not set forth specific facts

showing how each defendant proximately caused a constitutional deprivation. For a

claim to be cognizable, a plaintiff must “set forth specific facts as to each individual

defendant’s deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. But here, plaintiff

makes allegations against all the defendants without explaining exactly the dates of when

the alleged violations occurred, what happened, how it happened, the circumstances, and

the actions of each individual defendant. For example, if plaintiff wants to claim that the

food served was in violation of some constitutional right he has, he should describe what

the food was, when it was served to him, describe how the defendants became aware of

its alleged unsanitary character, describe what the defendants did or failed to do, and

describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions caused him injury. As such, the

complaint does not state a cognizable claim against any of the defendants. 

Furthermore, the amended complaint does not meet the requirement of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that the complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 8
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 For example, a state need not accommodate prisoners’ desires to pursue tort claims for slipand-falls or shareholder derivative suits. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355; see also Simmons v.

Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2003) (state official’s

refusal to transport prisoner to court for a state civil trial that is unrelated to the cause or

conditions of the detention does not violate prisoner’s constitutional right of access to the

courts).

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 4

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It is generalized and lacking in

detail that requiring defendants to attempt to frame a response to it would be unfair. The

lack of detail also prevents the court from determining whether the amended complaint

warrants service on defendants. Therefore, the amended complaint will dismissed with

leave to amend. 

Plaintiff makes a conclusory allegation that defendants have denied inmate/patient

access to the courts. Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts. See

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). 

The right of access to the court is limited to the initiation of a court action. The state is

not required to enable the prisoner to discover grievances or to litigate effectively once in

court. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 354. The right of access to the courts requires the state to

provide the prisoners with the capabilities to attack their sentences directly or collaterally

and to file 

§ 1983 claims challenging the conditions of their confinement. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 355. 

“Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly

constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” Id.1

 In order to establish a

constitutional claim for denial of access to the courts resulting from the alleged hindrance

of a plaintiff’s ability to bring a legal claim, the hindered claim must be a nonfrivolous

one. See id. at 352-53 & n.3.

A plaintiff must allege an “actual injury” to court access, however, which consists

of some specific “instance in which an inmate was actually denied access to the courts.” 

Sands v. Lewis, 886 F.2d 1166, 1171 (9th Cir. 1989). Only if an actual injury is alleged

does a plaintiff state a claim for which relief can be granted. See id.; see, e.g., Jenkins v.

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 5

McMickens, 618 F. Supp. 1472, 1474-75 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (complaint alleging certain

documents pertaining to pending trial confiscated and not returned too conclusory to

support claim of denial of access to court). 

Here, plaintiff makes a general allegation that he does not have adequate access to

the courts. However, it appears that plaintiff has not suffered an actual injury because he

has two cases now pending in this court and he does not allege that he has been prevented

from filing a claim. Plaintiff will be granted leave to AMEND his amended complaint to

state a cognizable claim of denial of access to the courts if he can do so in good faith. 

Plaintiff is urged to bear in mind that to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he

must allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States was violated, and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting

under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). He should

describe in his second amended complaint what actions each defendant took that caused

him harm, and how he was harmed by each individual defendant. Plaintiff must be

careful to allege facts showing the basis for liability for each individual defendant. He

should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., “the defendants;” rather, he should

identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to a specific claim by

explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his

constitutional rights.

Plaintiff alleges that he filed the instant action on behalf of himself and all other

similarly situated persons, who are unable to defend themselves. However, plaintiff

cannot bring this action as a class action, or represent any other individuals other than

himself. Pro se prisoner plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly

represent and adequately protect the interests of the class. Oxendine v. Williams, 509

F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th

Cir. 1962) (“a litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone

other than himself”), so class certification may be denied on that basis, see Griffin v.

Smith, 493 F. Supp. 129, 131 (W.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying class certification on basis that

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 6

pro se prisoner cannot adequately represent class). Therefore, this action cannot proceed

as a class action. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must contain allegations

pertaining to himself only. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that there is no respondeat superior liability under section

1983, i.e. no liability under the theory that one is responsible for the actions or omissions

of an employee. Liability under Section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal

participation by the defendant. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A

supervisor may be liable under section 1983 upon a showing of (1) personal involvement

in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San

Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). Plaintiff must

set forth specific allegations as to each defendant demonstrating how they were involved

in the alleged constitutional violations. 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the amended complaint to cure these

deficiencies. Accordingly, the amended complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend

within thirty days of the date this order is filed to allow plaintiff to include sufficient

facts to support his claims. 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to amend, 

as indicated above, within thirty days from the date of this order. The second amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (03-2414

RMW (PR)) and the words “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. 

Because the second amended complaint completely replaces the amended complaint,

plaintiff must include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Plaintiff may not

incorporate material from the original complaint, such as supporting documentation or

exhibits, by reference. Plaintiff must include all documentation and supporting

information with the second amended complaint. Failure to amend within the

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 7

designated time will result in the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. 

 2. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/15/2006 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 8
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

Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.03\Jordon414dwlta 8

This is to certify that on 4/19/2006 , a copy of this

ruling was mailed to the following:

Ishmael Jordan

NA-203270-4

2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy

Napa, CA 94558

Case 5:03-cv-02414-RMW Document 14 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 8