Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00691-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE B. PENILTON IV,

Plaintiff,

v.

BENTON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 691 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RETURN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 19, 2005. 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 1, 11) 

 Willie B. Penilton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action

on May 23, 2005. On June 24, 2005, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On December 19,

2005, Plaintiff submitted a Second Amended Complaint which was lodged with the Court. 

A. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991). 

As noted above, Plaintiff has amended his complaint once prior to December 19, 2005,

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 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

27

28

2

when he submitted a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff did not seek permission to file the

Second Amended Complaint as is required by the rules. Moreover, the Second Amended

Complaint appears to be almost identical to the Amended Complaint with the except of a new

signature and notation regarding Plaintiff’s Counsel. As Plaintiff did not seek the requisite

permission to file yet another Amended Complaint, the Court will DIRECT the Clerk of Court to

RETURN the lodged documents to Plaintiff. 

B. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

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

C. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

The Complaint names George Benton, Plaintiff’s appellate attorney, the California

Appellate Project and Corcoran State Prison as Defendants. Plaintiff lists numerous complaints

against his appellate counsel as well as the California Appellate Project all surrounding his

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 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

27

28

3

criminal appeal. In addition, Plaintiff complains he has had several difficulties while confined at

Corcoran with his legal work and mail. Plaintiff states that his mail has been wrongfully

destroyed, confiscated and lost. 

D. RELEVANT LAW

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or

causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States. . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution. . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42

U.S.C. § 1983.

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the

defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named defendant

with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights.

1. Improper Defendants

Plaintiff names as Defendants Corcoran State Prison, the California Appellate Project and

George G. Benton, his appellate Attorney. 

As a preliminary matter, Corcoran State Prison is not a person for the purposes of a

Section 1983 action. See, Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (concluding that suit

against the state Board of Corrections was barred by the eleventh amendment). While the

California Appellate Project and George Benton might be proper defendants in a civil action, the

allegations made in the instant complaint against them do not concern the conditions of

Plaintiff’s confinement, they concern events surrounding his criminal appeal. Therefore, the

allegations and the Defendants named are not proper in a Section 1983 action. Should Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 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

27

28

4

wish to pursue claims against the latter two Defendants, he may wish to file a separate civil

action. However, these individuals and the claims against them are improper in the action filed

here and must be dismissed. 

2. Legal Property

The only allegation concerning the conditions of Plaintiff’s confinement are that

Plaintiff’s property was wrongfully confiscated, lost, stolen or destroyed does not state a claim

for relief under section 1983, as such an action does not violate plaintiff’s federal constitutional

rights.

Plaintiff does not allege who was responsible for the destruction, confiscation, or loss of

his property. Plaintiff may have no idea who stole his property. Even if Plaintiff were able link a

prison employee to the theft, the theft of the property would not give rise to a claim for relief

under section 1983 against the prison employee. “An unauthorized intentional deprivation of

property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy for

the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). 

3. Access to Courts

Inmates have a fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343, 346 (1996). The right of access is merely the right to bring to court a grievance the

inmate wishes to present, and is limited to direct criminal appeals, habeas petitions, and civil

rights actions. Id. at 354. The State is not required to enable the inmate to discover grievances

or to litigate effectively once in court. Id. 

Inmates do not have the right to a law library or legal assistance. Id. at 351. Law libraries

and legal assistance programs are only the means of ensuring access to the courts. Id. Because

inmates do not have “an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate

cannot establish relevant actual injury by establishing that his prison’s law library or legal

assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense.” Id. Rather, an inmate claiming

interference with or denial of access to the courts must show that he suffered an actual injury. Id. 

Although Plaintiff has generally alleged a denial of access to the Courts he alleges

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 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

27

28

5

insufficient facts that demonstrate a cognizable access to courts claim. 

4. Attachments to Complaint

The Court notes that Plaintiff has attached numerous exhibits to each Complaint he has

submitted to the Court. The Court wishes to inform Plaintiff that evidence is not required to state

a claim for relief. Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need

only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). 

Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely

upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. The rule does not require the

submission of evidence at this stage, nor does it require a lengthy recitation of facts. Only a

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” is required. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Further, the court cannot serve as a repository for the parties' evidence. 

Originals or copies of evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) should

not be submitted until the course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on

a motion for summary judgment, at trial, or when requested by the court). 

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

time to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he

wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). The Second Amended Complaint must specifically state how each defendant is involved. 

Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 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

27

28

6

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference

the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to RETURN the lodged Second Amended

Complaint to Plaintiff; 

2. The Clerk of Court is also DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

3. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a SECOND Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00691-OWW -GSA Document 13 Filed 01/10/06 Page 6 of 6