Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06033/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06033-0/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

27

28

1

Since the filing of this action numerous routine documents served on Plaintiff by the Court have been

returned and marked “refused.” Plaintiff is forewarned that should he continue to refuse court mail, the Court may

have to recommend dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL L. NEWMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWSON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6033 OWW SMS P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 1.) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK CIVIL RIGHTS

FORM 

 Carl L. Newman (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff filed the instant action on

July 29, 2004, naming S.C. Lawson, S. Sagel, Dr. Davis, Sgt. T Fehlman, R.N. Camarena, R.N.

Scott and A.K. Scribner as Defendants. 

A. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

2

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 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). 

A. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff alleges that on February 16, 2004, while temporarily detained at Corcoran State

Prison, he was brutally attacked by two correctional officers from Corcoran who were escorting

him somewhere. Plaintiff states that he was slammed to the floor when he stood up out of his

chair resulting in a facial laceration and bruising to his left side of his face, left leg, and hands. 

Two nurses were also present during this incident. Plaintiff was given a serious rules violation

which was later dismissed at CCI Tehachapi. 

B. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Although Plaintiff provides a narrative as to what happened, Plaintiff does not provide

any specific constitutional allegations other than the assertion that his civil rights were violated

and that his rights under the ADA were violated. The Court will provide Plaintiff with law that

may or may not be relevant to his claims to assist in curing the deficiencies outlined below. 

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

3

1. Linkage Requirement

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

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

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

In this case, Plaintiff lists seven individuals as Defendants but in his narrative, he does

not link any of the individuals to an act or omission giving rise to the alleged constitutional

violations. As such, the Complaint does not state any claims for relief. Plaintiff will be given

the opportunity to amend his Complaint to cure these deficiencies. 

2. Eighth Amendment

Plaintiff may be attempting to allege a claim of excessive force. 

When a prison security measure is undertaken in response to a incident the question of

whether the measures taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering depends on

"whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously

and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 5-

7, 112 S.Ct. 995, 999 (1992). Factors relevant to the analysis are the need for the application of

force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used and the extent of

the injury inflicted. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (1986). Other factors to be

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

4

considered are the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived

by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts know to them, and any efforts made to

temper the severity of a forceful response. Id., at 321. The infliction of pain in the course of a

prison security measure "does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment simply because it

may appear in retrospect that the degree of force authorized or applied was unreasonable, and

hence unnecessary." Whitley v. Albers, supra at 319; see also, Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,

112 S.Ct. 995 (1992). Prison administrators "should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the

adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve

internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security." Id. at 321-322 (quoting Bell

v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1970). 

Plaintiff does not provide sufficient information to determine whether his allegation is

appropriately classified as an excessive force claim and thus, fails to state a cognizable claim for

relief. 

3. Supervisory Liability

The Court notes that Plaintiff names the Warden as a Defendant. However, as in the case

of all of the Defendants, Plaintiff does not link any of the Defendants to an act or omission giving

rise to a constitutional violation. In any event, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold the Warden

liable as supervisory, the following applies. 

Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under Section 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). To state a claim

for relief under Section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege

some facts that would support a claim that supervisory Defendants either: personally participated

in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to

prevent them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

5

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List,

880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Although federal pleading standards are broad, some facts

must be alleged to support claims under section 1983. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County

Narcotics Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993). 

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that Defendants personally participated in the

alleged deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them; or promulgated or “implemented a policy so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a repudiation

of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” Hansen v.

Black at 646. 

The Complaint alleges no facts that give rise to a claim under a theory of supervisory

liability. 

4. Americans with Disabilities Act

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

(RA) “both prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.” Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d

1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a

disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the

benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subject to discrimination

by such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the RA provides that “no otherwise qualified

individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from

the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any

program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” 29 U. S. C. § 794. Title II of the

ADA and the RA apply to inmates within state prisons. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v.

Yeskey, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 1955 (1998); see also Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th

Cir. 1997); Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 447, 453-56 (9th Cir. 1996).

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts demonstrating a violation of the ADA.

D. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide Plaintiff with

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

6

time to file a first Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to

do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 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

27

28

7

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06033-OWW -SMS Document 21 Filed 03/10/06 Page 7 of 7