Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01409/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01409-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY L. PAGE,

Plaintiff, 1:06-CV-1409 ALA P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. He seeks relief

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), this Court is directed to dismiss a case at any time if

it determines that the action is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this Court] must accept

[Plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id. “To sustain an action under section

1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting

under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). 

Plaintiff claims he filed suit to, “enjoin the named [d]efendants from egregiously and

flagrantly depriving Plaintiff housed at Coalinga State [H]ospital of rights, protected by the

Constitution and laws of the United States.” Complaint at 5. Among Plaintiff’s specific

complaints are that “facility supports and services substantially depart from generally accepted

professional standards of care,” “the sexual treatment program is flagrantly inadequate,” and that

some defendants “follow an unconstitutional Jan. 04 clinical handbook.” Complaint at 7-9. 

However, Plaintiff provides no authority or analysis to support any of his claims. 

Plaintiff references 42 U.S.C. § 1997, known as the Civil Rights of Institutionalized

Persons Act, several times throughout his complaint as well as the due process protections of the

Fourteenth Amendment and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Complaint at 4-11. However,

other than vague references Plaintiff supplies no legal authority to support his assertions. 

Further, Plaintiff does not provide any examples of specific acts or instances of facts

which would support Plaintiff’s claims. Finally, Plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any law to

fact analysis. As such, this court cannot determine if Plaintiff has any claim upon which relief

may be granted and will therefore dismiss this complaint with leave to amend.

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

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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 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

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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

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. 

/////

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty-five (35) days of the date

of this order. Failure to due so will result in the dismissal of this action. 

DATED: October 23, 2007 

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 1:06-cv-01409-LJO -DLB Document 23 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 3