Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01436/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01436-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HAMILTON, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

NURSE DEBRA TYLER, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 10-1436 RMW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND; DENYING

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION;

DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 3, 4)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.

The court will DISMISS the complaint with leave to amend, DENY plaintiff’s motion for an

injunction, and DENY plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss

any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

*E-FILED - 5/11/10*

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd 2

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the

statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a

plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (per curium) (citations

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on

its face.” Id. at 1974. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Legal Claims

Plaintiff’s complaint is a rambling narrative of events in which plaintiff attempts to

describe what were violations of his constitutional rights. “The Federal Rules require that

averments ‘be simple, concise, and direct.’” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.

1996). Prolix, confusing complaints such as the one plaintiff filed in this case impose unfair

burdens on litigants and judges and fail to perform the essential functions of a complaint. Id. at

1179-80. Plaintiff’s complaint is written in a manner that is difficult to determine what exactly

plaintiff’s grounds for relief are. For example, plaintiff states, “Plaintiff further alleges his

preventable dabilitating [sic] deteriorating excruciatingly painful condition which has deprived

plaintiff of all outdoor yard programs or activities including showers which has culminated in

bed rashes were proximated by Defendant Hernandez’s retaliatorally [sic] harbored deprivation

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd 3

of proper medical treatment. Thereto these Defendants Hernandez, Evans, Cate, actions and

ratifications were without medical justrication and thus didn’t advance any legitimate

penological goals but were imposed to “chill” plaintiff’s exercise of his First Amendment rights,

however, these defendants maliciously sadistical [sic] actions culminated in physical and

psychological harm for plaintiff’s petitioning the government against defendants Tyler, Schere,

Bowman.” (Complaint 31-32.). 

Plaintiff should state each claim separately, and for each separately claimed violation of

his constitutional rights, he must state what occurred and the date(s) on which the events

occurred. He also must identify each defendant he proposes to hold liable for each claim, and

allege facts showing what each of those persons did or failed to do that violated his constitutional

rights. Plaintiff is also advised that liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the

deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.

1988). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if

he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act

which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. 

See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. To defeat summary judgment, plaintiff must “set forth specific facts

as to each individual defendant’s” actions which violated his rights. Id. at 634. Even at the

pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an

individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. Harrington,

152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff shall bear in mind that a complaint that fails to

state the specific acts of the defendant which violated the plaintiff’s rights also fails to meet the

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United

States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). 

For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend to file an

amended complaint containing all the claims plaintiff wishes to present. The complaint must be

divided into claims, one for each distinct event in which he contends there were violations of his

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd 4

rights, and with the defendants as to each claim identified. Plaintiff should avoid argument,

inflammatory language and unnecessary detail. Plaintiff is also cautioned against stating legal

conclusions without any factual support.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within thirty

(30) days from the date of this order, if plaintiff can cure the deficiencies specified above,

plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must indicate which specific,

named defendant(s) were involved, what each defendant did, what effect this had on plaintiff and

what right plaintiff alleges was violated. The amended complaint supersedes the initial

complaint. The amended complaint may not incorporate by reference any parts of the original

complaint or filings in another action. The amended complaint must be a completely new and

self-contained document. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in dismissal of plaintiff’s claims.

C. Motion for Injunction

Plaintiff has filed a motion for an injunction. A preliminary injunction may be granted

without written or oral notice to the adverse party or that party’s attorney only if: (1) it clearly

appears from specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that immediate and

irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or the

party’s attorney can be heard in opposition, and (2) the applicant certifies in writing the efforts,

if any, that have been made to give notice and the reasons supporting the claim that notice should

not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Neither is the case here. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion

for an injunction is DENIED.

D. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

There is no constitutional right to counsel in a civil case unless an indigent litigant may

lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. See Lassiter v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S.

18, 25 (1981). The court may ask counsel to represent an indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915 only in “exceptional circumstances,” the determination of which requires an evaluation of

both (1) the likelihood of success on the merits, and (2) the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd 5

claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. See id. at 1525. Both of

these factors must be viewed together before reaching a decision on a request for counsel under

28 U.S.C. § 1915. See id. 

The court is unable to assess at this time whether exceptional circumstances exist which

would warrant seeking volunteer counsel to accept a pro bono appointment. The proceedings are

at an early stage and it is premature for the court to determine plaintiff’s likelihood of success on

the merits. Accordingly, the request for appointment of counsel at this time is DENIED. This

does not mean, however, that the court will not consider appointment of counsel at a later

juncture in the proceedings, that is, after plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, defendants

have been served, and defendants have filed their dispositive motion. Therefore, plaintiff may

file a renewed motion for the appointment of counsel at that time, when the court will have a

better understanding of the procedural and substantive matters at issue. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s motion for

an injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

2. If plaintiff can cure the pleading deficiencies described above, plaintiff shall file

an AMENDED COMPLAINT within thirty days from the date this order is filed. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 10-1436 RMW

(PR)) and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Plaintiff may not incorporate

material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an amended complaint within

thirty days and in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

3. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

“[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged

in the amended complaint.” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend; Denying Motion for Injunction; Denying Motion for Appointment of

Counsel

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\CR.10\Hamilton436dwla.wpd 6

4. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s must keep the

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(b).

This order terminates docket numbers 3 and 4.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge

5/11/10

Case 5:10-cv-01436-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/10 Page 6 of 6