Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01519-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BURCH MICHAEL BOWEN,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-1519 MCE AC P

vs.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On

August 13, 2012, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff was then

granted appointment of counsel for the limited purpose of filing an amended complaint. On

October 14, 2012, plaintiff, through appointed counsel, filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”)

against defendants Cate, Milliner, Carrick, Swarthout, McAlpine, Shadday, Hartley, McElroy,

Chapnick, Boparai, Conanan, and Kamen. The FAC is now before the court.

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

1

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 03/19/13 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

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.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v.

Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a

complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it

must contain factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 

Bell Atlantic, id. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only

‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, 127 S.Ct. at 1964,

in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id.,

and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s FAC so conclusory that it is unable to

determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. While the

court finds service appropriate for defendant Shadday, there are simply no factual allegations as

2

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 03/19/13 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

to any of the other eleven defendants. The court has thus determined that the complaint does not

contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal

Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements

of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which

defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court

will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended 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 second

amended 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. 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 second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 a second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

3

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 03/19/13 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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 14, 2012 amended complaint is dismissed;

2. Gregory P. Wayland is appointed as limited purpose counsel in the above

entitled matter. This appointment is for the limited purpose of drafting and filing a second

amended complaint;

3. The second amended complaint shall be filed within 60 days;

4. Gregory P. Wayland’s appointment will terminate when plaintiff’s second

amended complaint is filed;

5. Gregory P. Wayland shall notify Sujean Park, at (916) 930-4278, or via email

at spark@caed.uscourts.gov, if he has any questions related to the appointment; and

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order upon Gregory

P. Wayland, Law Office of Gregory P. Wayland, 1010 Sagamore Way, Sacramento, California

95822.

DATED: March 18, 2013.

 

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mb;bowe1519.14am

4

Case 2:12-cv-01519-MCE-AC Document 17 Filed 03/19/13 Page 4 of 4