Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00988/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00988-0/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

SAMMY L. PAGE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-988 GEB KJM P

vs.

STEPHEN W. MAYBERG, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who has been civilly committed under California’s Sexually Violent

Predators Act, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 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.

I. The Complaint

The court is required to screen complaints filed by people proceeding in forma

pauperis. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the person has raised claims

that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 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

2

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

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). 

Plaintiff alleges that defendant Mayberg, the Director of the Department of Mental

Health, failed to submit the Clinical Evaluator Handbook and Standardized Assessment Protocol

to the Office of Administrative Procedure as required by law. As a result, plaintiff has been

evaluated for recommitment “in accordance with the unconstitutional protocol.”

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants Hupka and Coles, psychologists who are “on

contract with California Department of Mental Health,” prepared recommitment evaluations by

using the “unconstitutional protocol” and “intentionally ‘false fabricated portions’” of their

reports concerning plaintiff’s prior record. 

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 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

3

A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 has two elements: (1) a deprivation

of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the law or the Constitution of the United States (2)

committed by a person acting under color of state law. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535

(1981).

Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Mayberg are based on a violation of state law,

rather than of his constitutional rights. His allegations are so conclusory that this court cannot

determine whether he is otherwise alleging a violation of his federal constitutional rights or the

basis of any such violation. He will be given an opportunity to amend this portion of his

complaint only insofar as he is able to allege a federal constitutional violation.

Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hupka and Coles are on a different footing. 

It appears these private psychologists prepared reports under the authority of California Welfare

and Institutions Code § 6601(d) or (e) in connection with proceedings to recommit plaintiff as a

sexually violent predator and on that basis, the Department of Mental Health requested a petition

for recommitment. See Butler v. Superior Court, 78 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178-79 (2000)

(discussing procedure). 

In West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 55-56 (1988) the Supreme Court held that a

doctor who had a long-term contract to provide medical services to inmates in the prison

medical facility on a part-time basis acted under color of state law when providing treatment. It

based its conclusion on a number of factors, including the fact that the doctor was required to

follow the manual governing prison health care, which described the provision of health services

as a joint effort, and the the recognition that the state had a duty to provide health care to

prisoners, but had simply transferred that responsibility to the private doctor. Id. at 51, 54-55. 

Not every professional who enters into a contract with the state acts under the

color of state law. In Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1996), a state employee sued two

psychologists who “contracted with the state on a particular occasion” to evaluate him for job

fitness. The Court of Appeals found that neither doctor was a state actor within the

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 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

4

contemplation of the civil rights statutes, because there was no shared goal as in West and no

indication that the practitioners were somehow restrained in their “obligation to independently

determine whether Collyer was mentally fit to effectively function as an employee.” Id at 232.

The vague allegations in the instant complaint suggest that defendants Hupka and

Coles functioned more like the evaluators in Collyer than the doctor in West. Plaintiff will be

given an opportunity to amend this portion of his complaint to show, if he can, that these

defendants were acting under color of state law in evaluating plaintiff. 

Finally, because of the conclusory nature of the complaint, the court is unable to

determine whether plaintiff’s challenge would “necessarily imply the validity” of his

commitment and would thus be barred. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). 

Plaintiff claims to seek “purely prespective [sic] injunctive relief against DMH” and its use of the

“unconstitutional protocol” and the “false fabricated portions of reports,” which would not

violate Heck. Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997). However, he has not explained

why defendants Hupka and Coles are thus appropriate defendants. He will be given an

opportunity to amend his complaint. 

In sum, the court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a

claim for relief. As explained above, the court has determined that the complaint does not

contain a short and plain statement as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency,

733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has

failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be

dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 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

5

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). Furthermore, 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).

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. 

II. Motion For The Appointment Of Counsel

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 application for the appointment

of counsel will therefore be denied.

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 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

6

III. Request To Expedite Service Of Process

On August 9, 2006, plaintiff filed a request to expedite service of process. As

noted above, his complaint does not state a claim against any of the named defendants,

precluding service. 

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’s complaint is dismissed. 

3. 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.

4. Plaintiff’s August 9 and November 15, 2006 applications for the appointment

of counsel are denied.

5. Plaintiff’s August 9, 2006 motion to expedite service of process is denied. 

DATED: December 19, 2006.

2

page0988.14

Case 2:06-cv-00988-GEB -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/20/06 Page 6 of 6