Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02404/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02404-0/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

JEFFREY D. McDONALD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2404 MCE GGH P

vs.

ROSEANNE CAMPBELL, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner 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).

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 $20.00 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. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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

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. 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). 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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 complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants Baker and

Gibson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

As to plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment by defendant Lewis for his

highly offensive sexually oriented language directed toward plaintiff, such verbal abuse is not

enough to state a violation of plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights, where plaintiff does not

allege that the language was not intended to do more than simply taunt plaintiff. Plaintiff has not

alleged, for example, that the verbal abuse was intended to incite an attack upon him or resulted

in such an attack. “Although prisoners have a right to be free from sexual abuse, whether at the

hands of fellow inmates or prison guards, see Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1197 (9th

Cir.2000), the Eighth Amendment’s protections do not necessarily extend to mere verbal sexual

harassment. See e.g., Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254-55 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that

prison guard who engaged in ‘vulgar same-sex trash talk’ with inmates was entitled to qualified

immunity); Somers v. Thurman, 109 F.3d 614, 624 (9th Cir.1997).” Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d

1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004). Even plaintiff’s allegations that the “vulgar homosexual comments” 

were occasionally accompanied by threats does not rise to a constitutional violation because even

threats of bodily injury are insufficient to state a claim, as 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). 

To the extent that plaintiff intends to allege a cell search conducted by defendant

Lewis was retaliatory, plaintiff is informed that in order to state a retaliation claim, a plaintiff

must plead facts which suggest that retaliation for the exercise of protected conduct was the

“substantial” or “motivating” factor behind the defendant’s conduct. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc.

v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1989). The plaintiff must also plead facts which

suggest an absence of legitimate correctional goals for the conduct he contends was retaliatory. 

Pratt at 806 (citing Rizzo at 532). As noted, verbal harassment alone is insufficient to state a

claim. See Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). However, even threats

of bodily injury are insufficient to state a claim, because a mere naked threat is not the equivalent

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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

of doing the act itself. See Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987). Mere conclusions

of hypothetical retaliation will not suffice, a prisoner must “allege specific facts showing

retaliation because of the exercise of the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Frazier v. Dubois, 922

F.2d 560, 562 (n. 1) (10th Cir. 1990). Defendant Lewis will be dismissed as a defendant, but

plaintiff will be granted leave to amend within thirty days.

As to defendant Campbell, to the extent that plaintiff seeks money damages, 

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 has failed to link defendant Campbell to any affirmative act resulting in a

constitutional deprivation suffered by plaintiff. 

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978). 1

5

To the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, just as it is not necessary to

allege Monell policy grounds when suing a state or municipal official in his or her official 1

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 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, 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 has not alleged the unconstitutionality of a state policy

or procedure in this action. Defendant Campbell will be dismissed from this action, but plaintiff

will be granted leave to amend within thirty days. 

Addendum to Complaint

Subsequent to the filing of his original complaint, plaintiff filed an addendum,

seeking to supplement his claims for relief. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. Therefore, the court will

dismiss the addendum with leave to amend in thirty days. 

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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

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

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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

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

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $20.00. All fees 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 claims against defendants Lewis and Campbell 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

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 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

recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action.

4. Plaintiff’s addendum to his complaint, filed on January 5, 2007, is also

dismissed, but plaintiff is granted thirty days to include all his claims for relief in an amended

complaint; failure to do will result in the claims in his addendum not being included in this

action;

5. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor,

the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants.

DATED: 4/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

mcdo2404.b1

Case 2:06-cv-02404-RJT Document 8 Filed 04/12/07 Page 7 of 7