Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02187/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02187-1/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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MICHAEL J. HIX, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMADOR COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-2187 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff has 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ECF No. 4. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

 Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). ECF No. 12. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

2

of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. 

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(2). 

II. Motions for Court Order 

 Plaintiff filed a motion for a court order directing the Amador County Jail to complete 

plaintiff’s IFP certification and provide plaintiff with a certified copy of his trust account. See 

ECF No. 8 at 1-2. As plaintiff thereafter submitted a completed application to proceed in forma 

pauperis, ECF No. 12, plaintiff’s request is moot and will be denied. 

 Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting a court order directing Amador County Jail staff to 

provide plaintiff with “copies of motions and other documents. . . pertaining to this lawsuit.” 

ECF No. 9 at 1. As plaintiff is no longer housed at the Amador County Jail, see ECF Nos. 10 & 

13, plaintiff’s request will be denied as moot. 

III. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

 A claim “is [legally] frivolous where 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). “[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Jackson v. Arizona, 

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation and internal quotations omitted), superseded by statute 

on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Neitzke, 490 

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

has an arguable legal and factual basis. Id. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

3

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (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.” Id. (citations 

omitted). “[T]he pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that 

merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) 

(quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216 (3d 

ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). 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 Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as 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). 

IV. Allegations of the Complaint 

 The complaint alleges that from August 30, 2015 through September 10, 2015, plaintiff 

was “unjustly put in ad-seg in the Amador County Jail then deprived of [the] minimum 3 hours of 

yard time that Title 15 states [he] was allowed. Only getting an hour and a half [sic] and it was 

done deliberately.” ECF No. 1 at 2. Although the first page of the complaint names Amador 

County Jail as the defendant, plaintiff goes on to list Lt. Vickie Stephens as the individual who 

caused the alleged injury. See id. at 2. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

4

Based on his allegation that the loss of yard time caused “unnecessary emotional distress 

to [his] marriage and also [to plaintiff],” plaintiff seeks $50,000 in damages for emotional pain 

and suffering and “strain on [his] marriage.” See id. at 1-2. Plaintiff’s grievance concerning the 

loss of yard time, and the first, second, and third level responses to plaintiff’s grievance, are 

attached as exhibits to the complaint. Id. at 3-6. The third level response to plaintiff’s grievance 

was issued by Lt. Vickie Stephens on September 15, 2015, after plaintiff was transferred to Deuel 

Vocational Institution (DVI). See id. at 4. 

V. Failure to State a Claim 

A. Eighth Amendment 

 Based on the allegations of the complaint and the attached exhibits, it appears that plaintiff 

intends to allege a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment based on insufficient 

access to outdoor exercise. “To prevail on a ‘conditions of confinement’ claim, a plaintiff must 

show serious deprivation and deliberate indifference.” May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th 

Cir. 1997). “Although exercise is one of the basic human necessities protected by the Eighth 

Amendment, a temporary denial of outdoor exercise with no medical effects is not a substantial 

deprivation.” Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1062, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations and 

citations omitted). See also May, 109 F.3d at 565 (denial of outdoor exercise for 22 days was 

temporary and insufficient to state a claim absent adverse medical effect); Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he clear implication of May is that temporary denials of 

outdoor exercise must have adverse medical effects to meet the Eight Amendment test, while 

long-term deprivations are substantial regardless of effects.”). Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has 

recognized that prison officials may restrict outdoor exercise based on “inclement weather, 

unusual circumstances, or disciplinary needs[.]” Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 

1979) 

 Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he received only one and one half 

hours of yard time for the 12-day period spanning August 30, 2015 through September 10, 2015. 

Under the law of this circuit, a 12-day denial of outdoor exercise constitutes a temporary, not 

long-term, deprivation. See May, 109 F.3d at 565 (denial of outdoor exercise for 22 days was a 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

5

temporary deprivation). Because plaintiff alleges only a temporary deprivation of outdoor 

exercise, plaintiff’s claim may not proceed unless plaintiff also alleges that he suffered some 

adverse medical effects as a result of the deprivation. Here, plaintiff alleges only that he suffered 

emotional distress and strain on his marriage. Because plaintiff does not allege that he suffered 

any adverse medical effects as a result of the temporary denial of outdoor exercise, plaintiff’s 

claim must be dismissed. However, plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. 

B. Lt. Stephens as a Defendant 

 Although it is not entirely clear, it appears from the complaint and attached exhibits that 

plaintiff may have named Lt. Stephens as a defendant solely based on her supervisory position 

and/or her response to plaintiff’s grievance at the third level of review. 

Plaintiff is advised that 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 proceedings 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 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

6

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, the complaint contains no allegations that Lt. Stephens caused plaintiff’s loss of 

access to outdoor exercise, and plaintiff’s exhibits indicate only that Lt. Stephens responded to 

plaintiff’s grievance at the third level of review, after plaintiff had been transferred to DVI. 

Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to allege a sufficient causal connection between Lt. Stephens’ 

actions and the alleged violation of plaintiff’s rights. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended 

complaint, plaintiff should clearly explain what Lt. Stephens did and how Lt. Stephens’ actions 

violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

C. Amador County Jail as a Defendant 

A local government unit may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees under a 

respondeat superior theory of liability. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 

691 (1978). Rather, a local government unit may only be held liable if it inflicts the injury 

complained of through a policy or custom. Waggy v. Spokane County Washington, 594 F.3d 

707, 713 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the Amador County Jail does not appear to be a proper 

defendant in this action. If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff should 

consider who he believes denied him adequate access to outdoor exercise while he was 

incarcerated in the Amador County Jail. Plaintiff should attempt to identify these individuals in 

his amended complaint, and should explain in specific terms what each named individual did that 

directly deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights. 

VI. Leave to Amend 

If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the 

conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo 

v. Goode, 423 U.S. at 370-71. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 

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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

7

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 

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

his first amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 929 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the 

original complaint 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. 

VII. Summary 

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

Plaintiff’s request for a court order directing the Amador County Jail to complete 

plaintiff’s IFP application is denied as moot because plaintiff has now filed a completed IFP 

application. 

Plaintiff’s request for a court order requiring the Amador County Jail to provide plaintiff 

with copies is denied as moot because plaintiff is no longer housed at the Amador County Jail. 

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because the facts plaintiff has alleged are 

not enough to state a claim for relief. In order to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on a 

temporary denial of outdoor exercise, plaintiff must allege facts showing that he suffered some 

medical effect as a result of the denial of exercise. Plaintiff must also explain how each named 

defendant caused the alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, the first amended complaint must include all 

of the claims plaintiff wants to make because the court will not look at the claims or information 

in the original complaint. In other words, any claims not in the first amended complaint will not 

be considered. 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 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 

8

VIII. Conclusion 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 12) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith. 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Amador County Jail to complete plaintiff’s 

IFP application (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot. 

 4. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing Amador County Jail to provide copies of 

plaintiff’s documents (ECF No. 9) is denied as moot. 

 5. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. 

 6. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended 

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an 

original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in 

accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint 

form used in this district. 

DATED: September 29, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02187-AC Document 15 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 8