Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01072/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01072-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER CONDEE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C/O CASTILLO, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:14 cv 01072 AWI GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff is prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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). “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). 

Case 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 5
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

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate currently in custody at the Los Angeles County Jail, brings this civil 

rights action against correction officials employed by the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names as Defendants the following 

individuals: Correctional Officer (C/O) Castillo; C/O Aronea and Sergeant Garcia. Plaintiff‟s 

statement of claim, in its entirety, follows:

On several occasions I was subjected to physical harm for failing 

to provide confidential information to correction staff (see Exhibit 

A). I was denied food, subjected to assault, pepper spray, I was 

threatened by C/O Castillo and Sergeant Garcia knew and did 

nothing to stop the abuse. I am an inmate/patient at EOP level of 

care. 

(Comp. ¶ IV.) 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth generalized 

allegations regarding the conditions of his confinement, and names 3 individual defendants. To 

state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color 

of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal 

law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives 

Case 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 2 of 5
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

another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an affirmative act, participates in 

another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do 

that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite 

causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in 

the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or 

reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting 

Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged each defendant with conduct 

indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to Plaintiff‟s safety, resulting in injury 

to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by alleging that he was subjected to 

a risk of harm or that he suffered injury. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each 

defendant was aware of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that 

harm. Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff 

will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what happened. Plaintiff 

must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described by 

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Case 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal 

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2015 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

Case 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 4 of 5
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

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 1:14-cv-01072-DAD-EPG Document 10 Filed 02/12/15 Page 5 of 5