Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01554/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01554-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARTHUR TORLUCCI,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. HAMKAR et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1554 DAD P

ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint. 

SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01554-MCE-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/15 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

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, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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, 550 

U.S. at 555. 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). 

 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01554-MCE-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/15 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

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). 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). 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is more than 100 pages long and in it he names more than a 

dozen defendants. In short, the amended complaint is disorganized and difficult to decipher in 

every respect. It consists of a hodge-podge of unrelated allegations, some illegible, interspersed 

with citations to legal authority and copies of plaintiff’s prison file. This court previously advised 

plaintiff that if he wished to proceed in this cause of action, he needed to file an amended 

complaint and allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation 

of plaintiff’s rights. The court further advised plaintiff that, insofar as he wished to proceed on a 

claim for inadequate medical care, he needed to allege facts demonstrating how each defendant’s 

actions rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). 

Plaintiff has failed to follow these directives in his amended complaint, which fails to state any 

cognizable claims for relief as far as the undersigned can decipher it. Accordingly, the amended 

complaint should be dismissed. 

Plaintiff has been provided an opportunity, with guidance, to amend his original complaint 

to attempt to state a cognizable claim. He has failed to do so. Where, as here, it is clear that 

granting plaintiff further leave to amend would be futile, the court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002) (there 

is no need to prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment where the “basic flaw” in the 

underlying facts as alleged cannot be cured by amendment); Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 

F.3d 1027, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Because any amendment would be futile, there was no need to 

prolong the litigation by permitting further amendment.”). 

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-01554-MCE-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/15 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

CONCLUSION 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States 

District Judge to this action. 

 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for failure to state a 

cognizable claim for relief. 

 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that 

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Dated: October 13, 2015 

DAD:9 

torl1554.56 

Case 2:14-cv-01554-MCE-AC Document 11 Filed 10/13/15 Page 4 of 4