Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01362-1/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 This case was transferred from the Northern District. See Order, filed on 7/11/07. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 07-1362 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., ORDER

Defendants. 

 /

Plaintiff is an inmate of Yolo County’s Monroe Detention Center proceeding pro

se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local

Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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. 

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 $6.50 will be assessed by this

order. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 8
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

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

Court. 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 must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). 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

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 8
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

 Plaintiff acknowledges that he has brought his allegations against a number of the 2

defendants previously in Case No. CIV -07-0078 GEB CMF P [now LKK GGH P]. Complaint,

p. 7. 

3

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Chaud (or

Chan), Sgt. D. Hunter, Gibson, Lucerro, Hudson, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b).

 By Order, filed on October 3, 2007, Judge Karlton related two cases, formerly

No. CIV S 07-0078 GEB CMK P and No. CIV S 07-1362 LEW DAD P, now denominated No.

CIV S 07-0078 LKK GGH P and No. CIV S 07-1362 LKK GGH P, to No. CIV S 07-0022 LKK

GGH P, now No. CIV S 07-0022 GGH P. Plaintiff names nearly 30 defendants, alleging

violations of his Fourth, Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Many of the

wide-ranging claims herein are duplicative of the claims set forth in Case No. CIV S 07-0022

GGH P or in Case No. CIV S 07-0078 LKK GGH P-- including plaintiff’s claims regarding the

manner of his December 11, 2006, arrest and what allegedly occurred upon his arrival and intake

at the Monroe Detention Center (Complaint, pp. 7, 16-18), placement in administrative

segregation (id. at 19), and most of his allegations regarding food poisoning and lack of medical

care for same (id. at 20), his allegations regarding lack of “grooming tools” and his claims

regarding his mail (id. at 6, 24), retaliation claims (id. at 8), and the defendants associated with

these claims - - and will be dismissed. 

2

Governor Schwarzenegger and California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation Secretary James Tilton are newly named defendants, who, as state officials, 

plaintiff claims are responsible for the operation and security of, inter alia, county jails. 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

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 8
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 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978). 3

4

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). Defendants Schwarzenegger and Tilton will be dismissed in their individual

capacities.

 Just as it is not necessary to allege Monell policy grounds when suing a state or 3

municipal official in his or her official capacity for injunctive relief related to a procedure of a

state entity, Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247 (9th Cir. 1989), it follows that it is not necessary to

allege the personal involvement of a state official when plaintiffs are attacking a state procedure

on federal grounds that relates in some way to the job duties of the named defendant. All that is

required is that the complaint name an official who could appropriately respond to a court order

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 4 of 8
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

on injunctive relief should one ever be issued. Harrington v. Grayson, 764 F. Supp. 464, 475-

477 (E.D. Mich. 1991); Malik v. Tanner, 697 F. Supp. 1294, 1304 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). 

(“Furthermore, a claim for injunctive relief, as opposed to monetary relief, may be made on a

theory of respondeat superior in a § 1983 action.”); Fox Valley Reproductive Health Care v. Arft,

454 F. Supp. 784, 786 (E.D. Wis. 1978). See also, Hoptowit v. Spellman, 753 F.2d 779 (9th Cir.

1985), permitting an injunctive relief suit to continue against an official’s successors despite

objection that the successors had not personally engaged in the same practice that had led to the

suit. However, because a suit against an official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the

state, a practice, policy or procedure of the state must be at issue in a claim for official capacity

injunctive relief. Haber v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25, 112 S. Ct. 358, 361-62 (1991). Plaintiff, in

making his broad-sweeping allegations, does not implicate as unconstitutional, any practice or

policy of the state. Defendants Schwarzenegger and Tilton will be dismissed in their official

capacities. Plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

Other than his duplicative allegations to be dismissed on that basis, plaintiff does

not set forth colorable claims. Plaintiff identifies a Deputy Huff, whom he does not clearly

identify as a defendant, and of whom he seems to be saying that this individual lied about who he

was and about who the kitchen staff was who may have sent plaintiff contaminated cranberry

juice containers on January 9, 2007. Complaint, p. 20. In another claim, plaintiff alleges that

only water to his cell was cut-off on January 15, 2007, leaving him thirsty and unable to flush his

toilet for the day. Id. at 21. 

Prison officials have a duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter,

food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726,

731 (9th Cir. 2000), citing, inter alia, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S. Ct. 1970

(1994). When an inmate has been deprived of necessities, “the circumstances, nature and

duration of a deprivation...must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation

has occurred.” Johnson, supra, at 731. “‘[A] lack of sanitation that is severe or prolonged can

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 5 of 8
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

constitute an infliction of pain within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.’” Id., quoting

Anderson v. County of Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1314, as amended, 75 F.3d 448 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff’s allegations with respect to having been sent juice in contaminated

containers on one occasion or having to endure an unflushed toilet or lack of drinking water for a

limited period do not rise to the level of Eighth Amendment violations. Nor have these

allegations been adequately linked to specific defendants. These claims will be dismissed with

leave to amend within thirty days. 

As to defendant Tony, who allegedly threatened plaintiff with physical harm on

January 15, 2007, plaintiff fails to frame a claim. Id. at 21. Threats of bodily injury are

insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked threat is not the equivalent of doing the act

itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). This claim will be dismissed with

leave to amend.

While plaintiff arguably frames an inadequate medical care claim against an

individual named Ms. Christine for refusing to distribute plaintiff’s prescribed antibiotics to treat

his alleged food poisoning for three days, he has failed to identify her clearly as a defendant. 

This claim will be dismissed with leave to amend. 

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. See 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

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 6 of 8
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

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. Plaintiff is strongly cautioned not to duplicate claims brought in his pending prior

lawsuits.

Miscellaneous

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on October 2, 2007, was not

accompanied by a proposed first amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provide that a party may amend his or her pleading “once as a matter of course at any time before

a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Nevertheless, in light of the court’s

screening of plaintiff’s original complaint and the court’s having granted plaintiff leave to amend

herein, the motion will be disregarded. 

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 request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

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 is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $6.50. All fees shall be collected and paid in

accordance with this court’s order to the Sheriff of Yolo County filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Schwarzenegger; Tilton; Prieto; Day;

Rademaker; Malagra; Miller; Ray, Sr.; Ray, Jr.; Denier; Lavegnour; Oliver; Barrientos; Ward;

Capel; Westera; McCallister; Guerro; Kendrick; Cordova; Austin; Purcell; Geogini, as well as

claims against those not clearly identified as defendants, Huff and Christine, are dismissed for

the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the

date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a

recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action. Also dismissed are

plaintiff’s claims duplicative of those made in prior, pending actions, as set forth above, which

plaintiff should not re-allege in any amended complaint. 

4. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, filed on October 10, 2007 (#6), is

disregarded. 

5. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel, included in the July 11, 2007

(#1) filing, is denied. 

DATED: 04/15/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

turn1362.b1

Case 2:07-cv-01362-LKK -GGH Document 8 Filed 04/16/08 Page 8 of 8