Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03145/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03145-0/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

ALAMIN SAMAD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3145 JAM DAD P

vs.

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule

302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) & 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is

currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall

be collected and 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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(2).

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 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.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47

(1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim 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,

550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

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).

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). 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’S COMPLAINT

In the present case, plaintiff has identified as defendants S. Hubbard, D. Medina,

M. French, J. Nepomuceno, and John Does 1-4. Plaintiff’s complaint is made up of vague

allegations and is difficult to decipher. However, plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants

have denied him adequate medical care and “trespassed” on his right to free speech. For

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

example, plaintiff appears to allege that the defendants have refused to provide him with a

prescribed medical device. He further alleges that none of his serious medical concerns have

been resolved because prison officials have failed to investigate his complaints about medical

staff. Plaintiff also appears to allege that prison officials have failed to respond to his inmate

appeals. In terms of relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Compl. at 5 & Attachs.)

DISCUSSION

The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court

is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. 

The complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice to

the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. 

Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which each defendant engaged in that support

his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint. 

In any amended complaint, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how the

conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory

rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). In addition, plaintiff must allege in

specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of his rights. 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). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights

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

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

 If plaintiff elects to pursue this action by filing an amended complaint, he is

advised that all defendants must be identified in the caption of his pleading and that all

defendants must be named, with position and place of employment, in the section of the form

designated for that purpose. In his original complaint, plaintiff refers to four defendants as “John

Doe.” “As a general rule, the use of ‘John Doe’ to identify a defendant is not favored.” Gillespie

v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff is advised that the court cannot order

service of a complaint on defendants not actually identified by name in his amended complaint.

Plaintiff is also advised of the following legal standards that appear to govern the

claims he is attempting to present. First, in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the

Supreme Court held that inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rose to the level of “deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs.” In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that

before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, “the indifference to his

medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’

will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir.

1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). In any amended complaint, plaintiff must allege facts

demonstrating how defendants’ actions rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” In this

regard, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each defendant was involved in the denial of

his medical care. 

To the extent that plaintiff has attempted to assert a claim against defendants for

failing to process his inmate appeals, he is advised that he fails to state a cognizable claim for

relief. Prison officials are not required under federal law to process inmate grievances in a

specific way or to respond to them in a favorable manner. In this regard, even if the defendants

delayed, denied, or erroneously screened out plaintiff’s grievances, they have not deprived him of

a federal constitutional right. It is well established that “inmates lack a separate constitutional

/////

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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.

OTHER MATTERS

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for a court order directing the United States

Marshal to effect service on the defendants. The court will deny plaintiff’s motion. As noted

above, after screening plaintiff’s original complaint, the court is unable to determine whether the

current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. If plaintiff elects to pursue this

action by filing an amended complaint, in due course the court will screen plaintiff’s amended

complaint. If the court determines that plaintiff’s amended complaint states a cognizable claim

for relief, the court will order plaintiff to provide the court with the information necessary to

effect service on the defendants. Then, the court will order the United States Marshal to

commence service. Plaintiff is advised that no motion from him is necessary.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3) is granted.

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

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 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

4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed without prejudice.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a

civil rights action.

6. Plaintiff’s motion for a court order directing the United States Marshal to

effect service on the defendants (Doc. No. 7) is denied.

DATED: February 17, 2010.

DAD:9

sama3145.14a

Case 2:09-cv-03145-JAM-DAD Document 8 Filed 02/18/10 Page 7 of 7