Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00082-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK KELLEY,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 0082AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

MS. FERGUSON,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former 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, formerly in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against

Defendant Ferguson, a nurse employed by the Department of Corrections at Tehachapi. 

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that Defendant subjected him to verbal sexual

harassment. The Ninth Circuit has held that sexual harassment can constitute an Eighth

Amendment violation, but not in a case without physical contact. Bowie v. California Dept. of

Corrections, 99 F.3d 1145 (9 Cir. 1991), citing Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9 Cir. th th

1993); Hernandez v. Denton, 861 F.2d 1421 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 75 (1991). th

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Ferguson made a suggestive comment to Plaintiff while

Case 1:07-cv-00082-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

2

Plaintiff was receiving his medication. This initial comment was directed to Plaintiff. Ferguson

then made a sexually suggestive comment to Plaintiff while she was with her correctional officer

escort. There are no allegations that Ferguson made any physical contact with Plaintiff. The

complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief, and must be dismissed. The Court will,

however, grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

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:

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. 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

Case 1:07-cv-00082-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 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

3

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00082-AWI-WMW Document 9 Filed 06/27/07 Page 3 of 3