Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01804/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01804-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK G. COOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN SUTTON, WARDEN,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01804-JDP

SCREENING ORDER

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN 

SIXTY DAYS

ECF No. 1

Plaintiff Roderick Cooley is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint is before 

the court for screening. Plaintiff claims that another inmate bit off his earlobe, and implies that 

prison officials knew this inmate was dangerous before the attack. See ECF No. 1 at 5. The court 

has screened the complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim. The court gives plaintiff leave 

to file an amended complaint within 60 days. If plaintiff chooses to amend, he should consider 

listing defendants other than the warden and must describe more specifically the acts or omissions 

of the defendants. He should also consider using a complaint form. 

SCREENING AND PLEADING REQUIREMENTS

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The plausibility standard does not 

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 04/15/20 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

27

28

2

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of 

“allegations that give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 

F.3d 1257, 1264 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which 

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

DISCUSSION

Section 1983 allows a private citizen to sue for the deprivation of a right secured by 

federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Manuel v. City of Joliet, Ill., 137 S. Ct. 911, 916 (2017). To 

state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that a defendant acting under color of state law 

caused an alleged deprivation of a right secured by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Soo Park 

v. Thompson, 851 F.3d 910, 921 (9th Cir. 2017). The plaintiff can satisfy the causation 

requirement by showing either (1) the defendant’s “personal involvement” in the alleged 

deprivation or (2) a “sufficient causal connection” between the defendant’s conduct as a 

supervisor and the alleged deprivation. See King v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th 

Cir. 2018). Supervisors are not liable for the acts of their employees. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at

676 (2009). Instead, “a plaintiff must plead that each . . . defendant, through the official’s own 

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 04/15/20 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

27

28

3

individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint names only the warden of his prison as a defendant.

1

 But the 

complaint does not describe any of the warden’s actions. This is not sufficient to state a claim. 

(The complaint does describe the actions of other prison officers, but the court does not know 

whether plaintiff intended to name these officers as defendants. If plaintiff amends his complaint, 

he should clarify this issue.)

The court will also describe some substantive law that may be relevant, should plaintiff 

choose to amend. Prison officials “have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands 

of other prisoners.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Officials violate this duty 

when (1) the alleged deprivation is “objectively, sufficiently serious” and (2) the officials acted 

with state of mind that was “deliberately indifferent.” Id. at 834. The allegations in plaintiff’s 

complaint must be “sufficient to raise an inference that the prison officials acted with deliberate 

indifference, or knew that [plaintiff] faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that 

risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 

(9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

We have screened plaintiff’s complaint and find that it fails to state a cognizable federal 

claim against any defendant. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed 

with this suit. An amended complaint would need to allege what each defendant did and why 

those actions violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights. If plaintiff fails to amend his complaint 

within sixty days, the court will issue findings and recommendations that plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed for the reasons stated in this order. 

Should plaintiff choose to amend the complaint,2the amended complaint should be brief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what actions each named defendant took that deprived plaintiff 

 

1 The caption of plaintiff’s complaint names “John Sutton; and et. al.” as defendants. See ECF 

No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff may thus have intended to proceed against more than one defendant; 

however, plaintiff must name each defendant at the beginning of his complaint. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties.”). 

2 Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims or new, 

unrelated defendants in his amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18; George v. Smith, 507 

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 04/15/20 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

27

28

4

of constitutional or other federal rights. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 

930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

Plaintiff must allege that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 

See Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Plaintiff should note that a short, concise statement in which the 

allegations are ordered chronologically will help the court identify his claims. Plaintiff should 

describe how each defendant wronged him, the circumstances surrounding each of the claimed 

violations, and any harm he suffered. 

If plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede 

the original complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc). This means that the amended complaint must be complete on its face without reference to 

the prior pleading. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the 

original complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, plaintiff must assert each claim and allege each defendant’s involvement in 

sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and refer 

to the appropriate case number. 

Accordingly, 

1. Within sixty days from the service of this order, plaintiff must file a First Amended 

Complaint.

2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

3. The clerk’s office is directed to send plaintiff a complaint form.

 

F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different 

suits . . . .”). 

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 04/15/20 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

27

28

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 205.

Case 1:19-cv-01804-DAD-HBK Document 7 Filed 04/15/20 Page 5 of 5