Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00614-0/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

DANIEL HOLLAND,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0614 DFL KJM P

vs.

JAMES TILTON, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff 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. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). 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). An initial partial filing fee of $3.58 will be assessed by this

order. 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 of twenty percent of the

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 5 Filed 06/06/07 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

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).

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 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 Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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. 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). 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 5 Filed 06/06/07 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

3

Plaintiff alleges that because of a medical condition, he was given a chrono for a

lower bunk. However, on August 24, 2006, he was assigned to an upper bunk and on August 30,

he fell off the upper bunk and injured himself on the concrete floor. He names as defendants

James Tilton, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, C.E. Finn,

Warden of Deuel Vocational Institution and S.R. Moore, Chief Deputy Warden, all of whom,

plaintiff alleges, have the responsibility for the care of inmates. He also names R. Lucas,

correctional captain, who allegedly failed to train staff as to the safe housing of inmates with

medical disabilities; L. Olivas, a lieutenant, who failed to ensure the safe housing of inmates

with medical disabilities; D. Stapp, sergeant, who failed to oversee proper housing and failed to

address plaintiff’s grievance adequately; and R. Russell, the appeals coordinator, who denied

plaintiff’s grievance on a “paltry procedural technicality.”

There is no right to an inmate grievance procedure, so the claims against

defendants Stapp and Russell based on their handling of plaintiff’s grievance have no place in an

amended complaint. Mann v. Adams, 846 F.2d 589 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Although plaintiff may state a claim against defendant Lucas for failing to train

staff, he has not clearly connected the other named defendants with his injury. A plaintiff must

connect the named defendants clearly with the claimed denial of his rights. Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 837, 843 (1994) (official’s liability for deliberate indifference to assault requires

that official know of and disregard an “excessive risk”); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th

Cir. 1989) (“liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by

the defendant (citation omitted) . . . [t]here is no respondeat superior liability under section

1983.”); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978) (discussing “requisite causal

connection” in section 1983 cases between named defendant and claimed injury); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally

involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). In this case, plaintiff seems to be relying on the

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 5 Filed 06/06/07 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

defendants’ roles as supervisors and does not identify the person or persons actually responsible

for his upper bunk assignment. A 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). Vague and conclusory allegations of official

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

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff will be given the opportunity to amend the complaint, if he is able to do

so while complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. 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. 

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in §1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s March 30, 2007 request for the

appointment of counsel will therefore be denied.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 5 Filed 06/06/07 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

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

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 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 of $3.58. 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 complaint is dismissed. 

4. 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 this case and must be labeled “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 a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

5. Plaintiff’s March 30, 2007 request for the appointment of counsel is denied. 

6. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for use in filing civil

rights actions in this district. 

DATED: June 6, 2007. 

2

holl0614.14

Case 2:07-cv-00614-JAM -KJM Document 5 Filed 06/06/07 Page 5 of 5