Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01359/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01359-3/pdf.json

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

EDDIE LAMAR DUNBAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-1359 JAM DB

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that officers used excessive force against him, denied him 

medical treatment, and threatened him. Presently before the court is plaintiff’s amended

complaint for screening (ECF No. 1). For the reasons set forth below the court will dismiss the 

complaint with leave to amend.

SCREENING

I. Legal Standards

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

////

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 1 of 6
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

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

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 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. Here, the defendants must act under color of federal law. Bivens, 403 U.S. at 

389. 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. Dept. 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

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 2 of 6
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

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). 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).

II. Allegations in the Amended Complaint

Plaintiff states the events giving rise to his claim occurred while he was incarcerated at 

High Desert State Prison (HDSP). (ECF No. 14 at 2.) He names as defendants in this action: (1) 

Internal Affairs1; (2) John Doe 1, ISU officer; (3) John Doe 2, Sergeant, (4) John Doe 3, 

Lieutentant; (5) N. Smith, ISU officer; and (6) John Doe 4, Warden. and (4) “a couple of officers 

unknown at this time.” (Id. at 1, 2.)

Plaintiff has set forth the following allegations in the amended complaint:

1) Internal Affairs falsified documents, Destroyed or Concealed 

evidence in 2017. 2) John Doe 1 Assaulted and Committer Battery 

with excessive force and brutality upon me in November 2015. John 

Doe 1 also denied me medical attention in the same time frame. 3) 

John Doe 2 and John Doe 3 coerced and persuaded a witness with 

threats on the condition of my life in December 2015. 4) N. Smith 

Assaulted and Committed Battery with excessive force and brutality 

upon me in November 2015. N. Smith also denied me medical 

attention in the same time frame. 5) John Doe 4 falsified documents, 

destroyed or concealed evidence in 2017. 6) All defendants 

committed perjury.

(ECF No. 14 at 3.)

////

 

1 As stated in the prior screening order, the court presumes plaintiff intends to name as a 

defendant the Office of Internal Affairs (OIA). The OIA conducts “complete, objective, and 

independent investigations of alleged employee misconduct.” See https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/oia/.

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 3 of 6
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

III. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim under § 1983

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or law of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged 

violation was committed by a person acting under color of State law.” Long v. County of L.A., 

442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)); accord

Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (“To make out a cause of 

action under section 1983, plaintiffs must plead that (1) the defendants acting under color of state 

law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes” (citations 

omitted).).

Plaintiff has stated only conclusory allegations that defendants violated his rights. Such 

statements are not sufficient to state a cognizable claim. Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Id. Facial plausibility 

demands more than mere possibility that a defendant committed misconduct and, while factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. “A claim has facial plausibility 

when plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that 

the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

As alleged in the amended complaint, the court cannot determine whether plaintiff has 

stated a claim. Accordingly, plaintiff must provide the factual background regarding the events at 

issue in the complaint in order for the court to determine the basis of his claims against 

defendants. 

IV. Amending the Complaint

As stated above, the complaint fails to state a cognizable claim. However, plaintiff will be 

given the opportunity to amend.

Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each defendant 

and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is not required 

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 4 of 6
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

to review exhibits to determine what plaintiff’s charging allegations are as to each named 

defendant. Each claim must be included in the body of the complaint. The charging allegations 

must be set forth in the amended complaint, so defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff 

is presenting. That said, plaintiff need not provide every detailed fact in support of his claims. 

Rather, plaintiff should provide a short, plain statement of each claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is brought 

in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It must 

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who 

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if 

he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do 

that causes the alleged deprivation).

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed. 

R. Civ. P 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or 

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any 

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must be 

set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely, and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema 

N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system, 

which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

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

amended complaint complete. An amended complaint must be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. R. 220. Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, all 

prior pleadings are superseded. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 5 of 6
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

By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and 

has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may impose 

sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 14) is dismissed with leave to amend.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to 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 to this case and must be labeled “First

Amended Complaint.”

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed.

Dated: January 21, 2020 

DB:12

DB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/dunb1359.scrn2

Case 2:19-cv-01359-JAM-DB Document 16 Filed 01/21/20 Page 6 of 6