Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00707/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00707-0/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

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0707 GEB EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 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 is granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $2.88 will be assessed by this order. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect

the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

////

////

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 7
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

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded

by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

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). 

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 7
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

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

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 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 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979);

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that defendant, Dr. Borges, refused to renew medical

and other chronos upon his transfer to Folsom State Prison. He further alleges that defendant I.

O’Brian refused to process his inmate appeals complaining of inadequate medical care. Further,

plaintiff alleges that when he brought this fact to the attention of the Chief of Inmate Appeals,

defendant Grannis, that nothing was done to remedy the situation. For the limited purposes of

this initial screening it appears that plaintiff has stated a claim against defendants Borges,

O’Brian, and Grannis. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to state a claim against defendants Summersett

and Willey. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate an actual connection or link between the actions

of these defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff, as required by 

the statute under which he seeks relief. See 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Monell, 436 U.S. 658; Rizzo,

423 U.S. 362. The court will therefore not order service upon these defendants. 

Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim against defendants Ball,

Kernan, Malfi, and Walker. Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are based solely upon a

theory of respondeat superior. The court will therefore not order service upon these defendants. 

 Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Borges, O’Brian, and Grannis and

pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and

attempt to state a cognizable claim against defendants Summersett, Willey, Ball, Kernan, Malfi,

and Walker in an amended complaint. If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to

state a cognizable claim against those defendants, he has 30 days so to do. He is not obligated to

amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Borges, O’Brian, and Grannis,

against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must return

materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe

plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants Summersett, Willey,

Ball, Kernan, Malfi, and Walker without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 7
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

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a first amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). A California prisoner or parolee may appeal “any

departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an

adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 15, § 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must

be presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and

“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison

officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims

that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is

further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted

by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation

of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claims against defendants

Borges, O’Brian, and Grannis. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

////

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 5 of 7
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

2. Plaintiff is must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action and make an initial

payment of $2.88. All payments shall be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

herewith. 

3. Claims against defendants Summersett, Willey, Ball, Kernan, Malfi, and Walker are

dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his

complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged

to amend his complaint.

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants Borges, O’Brian, and Grannis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk of

the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed April 13, 2007,

3 USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Borges, O’Brian, and

Grannis. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of

Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and

four copies of the April 13, 2007, complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States

Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Borges, O’Brian, and

Grannis will be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith

as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims against defendants Summersett, Willey,

Ball, Kernan, Malfi, and Walker without prejudice.

Dated: May 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD ADAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0707 GEB EFB P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

 / OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed .

One completed summons

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00707-GEB-EFB Document 6 Filed 05/15/07 Page 7 of 7