Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00176/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00176-1/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

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

LUIS VEGA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

E. ALAMEIDA, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0176 OWW DLB P 

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint filed

after this court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint. This proceeding was referred to this Court

by Local Rule 72-302 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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:05-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

Plaintiff once again names E. Alameida, the Director of the California Department of

Corrections and A. Scribner, Warden at California State Prison Corcoran as the only defnedants. As

in his original complaint, it appears that plaintiff is alleging that when he arrived at CSP, he had four

(4) boxes of personal property two of which were issued to him and he filled out paperwork to have

the other two boxes sent home. It appears that plaintiff contends his family never received the

property and he is seeking reimbursement for the same. Assuming these are plaintiff’s claims, he

has failed to described how the named defendants violated his constitutional rights. 

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). Because plaintiff has

failed to link the named defendants with some affirmative act or omission, plaintiff’s complaint must

be dismissed. 

In addition, plaintiff has once against only named supervisory defendants. As plaintiff was

previously advised, supervisory personnel, such as defendants Alameida and Scribner are generally

not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior

Case 1:05-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

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 show a prima facie case of supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege facts

indicating 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." Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.

1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state any claims upon which

relief can be granted. The Court will grant plaintiff one final opportunity to file an amended

complaint. The court will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing

the deficiencies identified by the court in this order. Plaintiff should carefully review this order and

the legal standards provided, and amend only those claims that plaintiff believes in good faith are

cognizable.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint 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). 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). 

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

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

Case 1:05-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 4
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

3. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; and

4. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the court

will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a

court order.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00176-OWW -DLB Document 15 Filed 02/27/08 Page 4 of 4