Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05378-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PEYTON SHOTWELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5378 REC WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

OFFICER STEVENSON, et al.,

Defendants.

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

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at CSP Corcoran, brings this civil rights action against

defendant Bakersfield Police Officer Stevenson, the Bakersfield Police Department, Kern

Medical Center, and other un-named defendants.

Plaintiff’s claim in this complaint relates to his underlying arrest. Plaintiff

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

alleges that defendant Officer Stevenson subjected him to excessive force, and that plaintiff was

subsequently denied adequate medical care.

Regarding his excessive force claim, plaintiff specifically alleges that Officer

Stevenson, without any provocation, “attacked plaintiff violently, choking, knocking him down,

pepper spraying him in eyes and face, striking plaintiff about face, knocking out two teeth and

swelling and lacerating face.” 

Because plaintiff has not alleged that he was a convicted inmate subject to

conditions of confinement, his claim of excessive force will be governed by the Fourth

Amendment. The amount of force necessary to effect an arrest is measured by a standard of

 "reasonableness" standard derived from the Fourth Amendment. Graham, 490 U.S. at 392. 

Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is

"reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment requires a careful

balancing of "'the nature and quality of the intrusion on the

individual's Fourth Amendment interests'" against the

countervailing governmental interests at stake. [Citations

omitted.] ... Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth

Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical

application," [citation omitted], however, its proper application

requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each

particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue,

whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the

officers or others, and whether is actively resisting arrest or

attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Id. at 1871-2.

Assuming the facts of the complaint as true, a liberal construction of the

complaint states a claim for relief as to defendant Stevenson. 

As to the remaining defendants, the statute plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978);

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’

another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

1While the deliberate indifference standardis applied under Constitutional provision, the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment, governs plaintiff’s claim

for denial of medical care as a pretrial detainee. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d

1435, 1442-43 (9th Cir. 1991) (applying deliberate indifference standard to pretrial detainees through

the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

3

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 the complaint is made.” Johnson v.

Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Here, plaintiff names the Bakersfield Police Department and the City of

Bakersfield as defendants, but fails to allege any facts that suggest they actively participated in

the conduct at issue. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable on a theory of respondeat

superior. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that defendants actively engaged in

the constitutional deprivation. Plaintiff has failed to do so. These defendants must therefore be

dismissed.

As to the medical care claim, plaintiff alleges that he was taken to the Kern

Medical Center for treatment. Plaintiff alleges that he was given aspirin and that he was denied

treatment by the resident nurse. Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an

obligation to provide medical care to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000). “In order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel

and unusual punishment, there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of

prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong

approach to evaluating whether medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate

indifference.” First, a court must examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. 

See Id. Second, a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the

plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132.1

Here, the court finds the allegations to be vague. Plaintiff may not subject any

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

individual to liability by a conclusory allegation that he was denied medical care. Plaintiff must

allege facts indicating that an individual defendant knew of and disregarded a serious risk to

plaintiff’s health or safety, resulting in injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff’s

deliberate indifference claim should therefore be dismissed. 

The complaint states a claim for relief as to Officer Stevenson. The complaint

fails to state a claim for relief as to the remaining defendants. Plaintiff will be provided an

opportunity to file an amended complaint. Should plaintiff fail to do so, the court will direct

service of process upon defendant Stevenson, and recommend dismissal of the remaining

defendants.

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). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to 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. 

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

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 07/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

first 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05378-LJO -WMW Document 18 Filed 07/13/05 Page 5 of 5