Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02295-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:13-CV-2295-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

BUTTE COUNTY POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 14).

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

1

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/24/16 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

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

In the amended complaint, plaintiff names as the only defendant the Butte County

Police Department. Plaintiff claims that the Butte County Police Department “illegally stopped 1

me and as result put in prison for no reason. . . .” The court addressed this claim in its prior

screening order as follows:

As to the Butte County Police Department, municipalities

and other local government units are among those “persons” to whom §

1983 liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

690 (1978). Counties and municipal government officials are also

“persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. at 691; see also Thompson v.

City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local

government unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its

employees or officials under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See

Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997). Thus,

municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of

the actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal

liability, therefore, the plaintiff must allege that the constitutional

deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or custom of the

municipality. See id. A claim of municipal liability under § 1983 is

sufficient to withstand dismissal even if it is based on nothing more than

bare allegations that an individual defendant’s conduct conformed to

official policy, custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles

Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988). In this case, plaintiff

fails to identify any custom or policy of the Butte County Police

Department which resulted in the alleged constitutional deprivation.

The amended complaint does not name Michael Ramsey, who was named in the 1

original complaint. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Michael Ramsey as a

defendant to this action. 

2

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/24/16 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

Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to identify some custom or policy of defendant which

resulted in a constitutional violation but fails to do so.

Because it does not appear possible that the deficiencies identified herein can be

cured by further amending the complaint, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to

dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000)

(en banc). Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this

action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is warned that failure to

respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well

as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 23, 2016

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:13-cv-02295-CMK Document 15 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 3