Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03036/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03036-0/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

MARCUS ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3036 EFB P

vs.

LOR, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Marcus Robinson, an inmate confined at California State Prison, Sacramento, filed this

pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to filing a complaint, plaintiff has

filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by

Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to

plaintiff’s consent. See E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Dckt. No. 2. Plaintiff’s application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and

(2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to

collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1) and (2).

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 1 of 8
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

II. Screening Order

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review “a complaint in a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). “On review, the court shall identify cognizable

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, finds that it states a claim against defendants Lor and Sandoval for deliberate

indifference to plaintiff’s safety in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

For the reasons stated below, plaintiff has not alleged a cognizable claim against

defendants Walker or Hubbard, nor has plaintiff alleged a cognizable claim based on the alleged

strip search. These claims and defendants must therefore be dismissed with leave to amend.

A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a

claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). While

detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff

must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability

requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has

acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a

defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility

of entitlement to relief.

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 2 of 8
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

framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to

the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim

unless the facts establish the defendant’s personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation

or a causal connection between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional

deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Plaintiff does not include any factual allegations linking defendants Walker or Hubbard

to deprivation of his federal rights. If plaintiff wishes to proceed on claims against either Walker

or Hubbard, he must amend his complaint to specifically identify each defendant and include

factual allegations showing how each defendant was personally involved in violating his federal

rights. The court notes, however, that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. 

Palmer v. Sanderson, 9 F.3d 1433, 1437-38 (9th Cir. 1993). That is, plaintiff may not sue any

supervisor on a theory that the supervisor is liable for the acts of his or her subordinates. See

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). “Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to

. . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948. A

supervisor may be liable “for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor

participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

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

Plaintiff also fails to state a claim based on his allegation of being strip searched. First, it

is not clear from the complaint who allegedly conducted the search. Further, plaintiff’s

allegations fail to suggest that the circumstances surrounding the alleged search were

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 3 of 8
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

unreasonable or otherwise in violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Searches of prisoners

must be reasonable to be constitutional. Nunez v. Duncan, 591 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2010). 

“The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or

mechanical application. In each case it requires a balancing of the need for the particular search

against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. Courts must consider the scope of

the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and

the place in which it is conducted.” Id. (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559 (1979)

(emphasis added)). Plaintiff’s scant allegations with respect to the strip search are insufficient to

state a plausible claim for relief. See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. 

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Lor and Sandoval and pursue his

Eighth Amendment claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant

and attempt to cure the deficiencies identified herein with respect to his strip search claim and

claims against defendants Walker and Hubbard. 

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Walker and Hubbard and/or based on the alleged strip search, he has 30 days so to

do. He is not obligated to amend his complaint. However, if plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith

against defendants Lor and Sandoval on his Eight Amendment claims, then within 30 days he

must return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will

construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of plaintiff’s claim regarding the strip search

as well as all claims against defendants Walker and Hubbard, without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must adhere to the following requirements:

It must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. E.D. Cal. Local

Rule 220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended

complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

It must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that plaintiff’s action is brought in

the right place, that plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 4 of 8
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

5

contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons who

personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional right. 

Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if

he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do

that causes the alleged deprivation).

It must contain a caption including the name of the court and the names of all parties. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). 

Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or occurrences,

the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join

multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Unrelated claims

against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. “The controlling principle

appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as

alternate claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing party.’ Thus multiple

claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with

unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in

different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit

produce[s], but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the Prison Litigation

Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any prisoner may file

without prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of defendants not permitted unless

both commonality and same transaction requirements are satisfied). Plaintiff may not change the

nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims in an amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d

at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

 The allegations must be short and plain, simple and direct and describe the relief plaintiff

seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002); Galbraith v.

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 5 of 8
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

County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002). A long, rambling pleading,

including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged

constitutional injury or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants very likely

will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing

plaintiff’s action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violation of

these instructions. 

Plaintiff must sign the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). By signing an amended

complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry and has evidentiary support for his

allegations. This rule specifically provides for sanctions for pleading filed in violation of the

rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). By signing an amended complaint plaintiff certifies his

claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies,

and that for violation of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his Eight

Amendment claims against defendants Lor and Sandoval.

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

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

2. Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350 for this action. All payments shall

be collected and paid in accordance with the notice to the Director of the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Claims based on the alleged strip search and against defendants Walker and Hubbard

are dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend

his complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies identified herein with respect to these claims. 

Plaintiff is not obligated to amend his complaint.

////

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 6 of 8
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

4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable Eight

Amendment claims against defendants Lor and Sandoval. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this

order the Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the complaint

filed October 30, 2009, two USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on

defendants Lor and Sandoval. Within 30 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed

USM-285 forms, and three copies of the October 30, 2009 complaint. The court will transmit

them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Defendants Lor and Sandoval will be required to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations as herein narrowed, within the deadlines stated in Rule 12(a)(1) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. In this event, the court will construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith

as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims based on an alleged strip search and

against defendants Walker and Hubbard without prejudice.

5. Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed.

Dated: August 11, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 7 of 8
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

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3036 EFB P

vs.

LOR, et al.

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

In accordance with the court’s order filed ______________________, plaintiff hereby

elects to:

(1) ______ consent to the dismissal of defendants Walker and Hubbard, as well as

claims based on the alleged strip search, without prejudice, and submits the following

documents:

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 3 copies of the October 30, 2009 Complaint

OR

(2) ______ delay serving any defendant and files an amended complaint in an attempt

to state cognizable claims against defendants Walker and Hubbard, as well as a claim based on

the alleged strip search.

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:09-cv-03036-KJM-EFB Document 5 Filed 08/12/10 Page 8 of 8