Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02166/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02166-1/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

WILLIAM HARPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-2166 LKK GGH P

vs.

LT. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 18, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave

to amend. Pending before the court is the amended complaint filed December 26, 2007.

Named as defendants are Lieutenants Williams and Chamberlin. Plaintiff alleges

that he was wrongfully found guilty of a rules violation. The guilty finding was later reversed

and the rules violation report was supposed to be removed from plaintiff’s file. However,

because the rules violation report was not removed, prison officials at the prison where plaintiff

has since been transferred are aware of the report and do not like plaintiff.

The amended complaint contains no specific allegations against defendants

Williams and Chamberlin. The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as

follows:

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/18/08 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

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). 

Because plaintiff has failed to link defendants to the alleged deprivations, the

amended complaint is dismissed.

Plaintiff may not rely on his exhibits to state his claims. Nevertheless, the court

has reviewed the exhibits attached to the amended complaint. These exhibits indicate that

defendants Williams and Chamberlin found plaintiff guilty of the rules violation report. Warden

Subia ordered the rules violation report dismissed. There is no evidence suggesting that either

defendant was responsible for the alleged failure of the charges to be dismissed or the failure of

rules violation report to be removed from plaintiff’s file. 

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/18/08 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

The court also observes that the amended complaint contains no specific

allegations demonstrating how plaintiff knows that prison officials at the new prison are aware of

the dismissed rules violation report. Plaintiff also does not allege that he has been actually

threatened by any prison officials. His claim that he is scared is unsupported and he names no

prison officials at the new prison as defendants. 

For the reasons discussed above, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave

to file a second amended complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

December 26, 2007, is dismissed with thirty days to file a second amended complaint; failure to

file a second amended complaint within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of

this action.

DATED: 01/18/08 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

har2166.ame

Case 2:07-cv-02166-LKK -GGH Document 13 Filed 01/18/08 Page 3 of 3