Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01994/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01994-8/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

JESSE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1994 WBS DAD P

vs.

J. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action. Plaintiff

has filed a request for leave to amend his complaint, together with a proposed first amended

complaint. Therein, plaintiff explains that he has now identified the defendant he refers to as

John Doe 1 in his original complaint. Defendants, who have filed an answer to plaintiff’s

original complaint, have not filed either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

plaintiff’s request.

Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, once an answer has been

filed, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse

party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). A court should grant leave to amend freely when justice so

requires. Id. The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts to heed carefully the command of

Rule 15. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). This liberality in granting leave to

Case 2:06-cv-01994-WBS-DAD Document 46 Filed 06/19/08 Page 1 of 3
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

amend is not dependent on whether the amendment will add new parties. DCD Programs v.

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). Rather, as the Supreme Court has articulated:

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason – such as undue

delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously

allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of

allowing the amendment, futility of the amendment, etc. – the

leave sought should, as the rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. See also Bowles v. Reade, 198 F.3d 752, 757-58 (9th Cir. 1999).

Here, the court finds that it would be futile for plaintiff to amend his complaint. 

In his proposed amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that prior to the start of Ramadan, he and

several of his fellow inmates notified the officers in charge of his housing unit that they were

going to practice the Muslim Ramadan fast. Plaintiff further alleges that he sent inmate

correspondence to defendant Mohamed to inform him that he and his fellow inmates were

sincerely anticipating observing the fast. Without more, plaintiff summarily concludes that

defendants, including Mohamed, failed to ensure that he and his fellow inmates were allowed to

exercise their rights under the First Amendment and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act. 

The allegations in plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint against defendant

Mohamed are so vague and conclusory that the court is unable to determine whether they are

frivolous or fail to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff has failed to allege with sufficient

particularity the overt acts which defendant Mohamed engaged in that support his claims. 

Specifically, plaintiff has failed to allege in what way defendant Mohamed interfered with his

exercise of religion. 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). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to amend his

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01994-WBS-DAD Document 46 Filed 06/19/08 Page 2 of 3
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

complaint will be denied, and the case will proceed on plaintiff’s original complaint and the

court’s discovery order. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s August

6, 2007 request to amend his complaint is denied.

DATED: June 18, 2008.

DAD:9

wash1994.10mod

Case 2:06-cv-01994-WBS-DAD Document 46 Filed 06/19/08 Page 3 of 3