Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01839/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01839-7/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

DION ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JERRY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB PC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

[ECF No. 25]

THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

I. Background

Plaintiff Dion Anderson (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed 

his complaint. ECF No. 1. On May 17, 2013, the Court screened the complaint and determined the 

complaint failed to state a claim for relief. ECF No. 15. The complaint was dismissed and Plaintiff 

was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint. On February 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First 

Amended Complaint. ECF No. 25.

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. Id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 03/11/15 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

“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.” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. 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). While factual 

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.

II. Summary of First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff essentially replicates his original complaint. 

Plaintiff was previously incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff names as Defendants 

Governor Jerry Brown, the California State Legislature; California Secretary of State Debra Bowen; 

California Youth and Adult Correctional Agent Bruce Slaving; Director of California Department of 

Corrections Matthew Cates; California State Controller John Chiang; State Attorney General 

Kamala D. Harris; and the California Superior Courts.

As he alleged in his original complaint, Plaintiff claims the following.1 On September 7, 

2010, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the United States Department of Justice concerning “substantial 

amounts of dollars” appropriated from prisoners’ convictions. Pl.’s First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) 5. 

Plaintiff was informed that he should contact the appropriate local or state agency. FAC 5. On April 

25, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion in the Sacramento Superior Court. FAC 6. Plaintiff was informed 

that he would need to submit a petition or complaint to proceed in court. FAC 6. On July 17, 2011, 

Plaintiff then filed a motion in Sacramento Superior Court for reclassification, submitting his felony 

criminal case number. FAC 7. On August 17, 2011, the court rejected the filing and informed 

Plaintiff he must follow proper procedures if he wished to initiate a new civil case. FAC 7-8.

On July 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed his complaint with a writ of possession, and was informed to 

 

1

Plaintiff’s complaint discusses claims that he filed on behalf of other inmates. To the extent that Plaintiff’s 

complaint discusses claims other than his own, such allegations are omitted from this order.

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 03/11/15 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

resubmit with only the first documents. FAC 8. After complying, Plaintiff received a response from 

the court which stated that Plaintiff’s filings were unclear and that he must have a case number 

before he can submit a proof of service. FAC 9. Plaintiff construed the court’s response as denial of 

access to the courts. FAC 9. On September 20, 2011, the court stated that without some type of 

payment, it could not process Plaintiff’s complaint. FAC 9.

Plaintiff claims this is a class action for breach of contract and warranty under admiralty law. 

He seeks release from prison, and workers compensation for the years he spent in prison without 

receiving minimum wage. 

III. Analysis

A. Class Action

In the prior screening order, Plaintiff was advised that he cannot proceed with a class action. 

In his FAC, Plaintiff merely restates his contentions that he should be the class representative for an 

alleged class action suit. Plaintiff cannot bring this suit as a class action. Plaintiff is proceeding pro 

se and lacks authority to appear as an attorney for anyone other than himself. See C.E. Pope Equity 

Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that “non-attorney may appear in 

propria persona in his own behalf” only). Thus, the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s class action 

allegations. 

B. Admiralty Law

Plaintiff seeks relief for breach of contract and warranty under admiralty law.2 There is no 

connection between Plaintiff and admiralty or maritime activity. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks 

an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827 

(1989) (quotation marks omitted); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996); Cato v. U.S., 70 

F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Petitioners' invocation of admiralty jurisdiction is 

frivolous and any claim asserted thereunder should be DISMISSED. See Lonsdale v. United States, 

919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

 

2

Plaintiff also requests release from prison as a result of these alleged violations. If a prisoner seeks to challenge the 

validity of a conviction or sentence and be released earlier from prison, he must pursue a habeas petition. Skinner v. 

Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2011) (citing Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)).

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 03/11/15 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

C. Access to the Courts

In the prior screening order, Plaintiff was advised that he cannot proceed on claims against 

the Sacramento County Superior Court. In his FAC, Plaintiff reiterates his allegations that the

Sacramento Superior Court denied Plaintiff access to the courts. Plaintiff’s claim fails as a matter of 

law, as the Sacramento Superior Court is considered an arm of the State of California and is thus 

immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 

318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003).

D. Supervisory Defendants

In his original complaint, Plaintiff named several California state government officials as 

Defendants, presumably under a theory of supervisory liability. In the screening order, the Court 

advised Plaintiff that the complaint failed to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to allege any facts 

which indicate that any supervisory Defendant personally participated in an alleged deprivation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or knew of such violation and failed to act to prevent it. In his FAC, 

Plaintiff reiterates his same allegations.

The term “supervisory liability,” loosely and commonly used by both courts and litigants 

alike, is a misnomer. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. “Government officials may not be held liable for the 

unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.” Id. at 676. 

Rather, each government official, regardless of his or her title, is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct. Id. at 677. When the named defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link 

between the defendant 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). To state a claim for relief under § 1983 for supervisory liability, plaintiff must allege some 

facts indicating that the defendant either: personally participated in the alleged deprivation of 

constitutional rights or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. Taylor v. List, 880 

F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). As previously discussed, Plaintiff fails to state a claim, as he fails 

to allege any facts which indicate that any supervisory Defendant personally participated in an 

alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, or knew of such violation and failed to act to 

prevent it.

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 03/11/15 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

IV. Findings and Recommendation

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state any cognizable claims against any Defendant. 

Plaintiff has been afforded an opportunity to amend, but has failed to correct the deficiencies. 

Therefore, the Court finds that further amendment is not warranted and RECOMMENDS that this 

action be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) days 

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01839-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 5