Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01447/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01447-6/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

HAROLD L. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1447 LKK GGH P

vs.

SHASTA COUNTY PROBATION, 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 February 14, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

On March 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a habeas corpus petition. On May 4, 2007, plaintiff filed an

amended complaint. The court will screen the amended complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that prison officials at High Desert State Prison are improperly

withdrawing money from his trust account to pay his restitution in connection with his criminal

conviction. Plaintiff contends that because the victim did not file an application for restitution,

prison officials should not be withdrawing the money. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in

connection with this claim. Although the ultimate efficacy of the claim is in great doubt, the

court finds that plaintiff has stated a colorable claim for relief against defendant Trust Office

Supervisor Keating.

Case 2:06-cv-01447-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 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

Plaintiff next claims that he has been verbally harassed by defendant Kirkland. 

Verbal harassment or abuse fails to state a cognizable claim under section 1983. Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the claims against defendant

Kirkland are dismissed.

Plaintiff also claims that he did not receive thermal underwear that arrived in his

quarterly package. Plaintiff has not linked any particular defendant to this claim.

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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).

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01447-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 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

Because plaintiff has not linked any particular defendant to this claim, it is

dismissed. 

In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held that “an unauthorized

intentional deprivation of property by a state employee does not constitute a violation of the

procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a

meaningful postdeprivation remedy for the loss is available.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,

533 (1984). Thus, where the state provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, only

authorized, intentional deprivations constitute actionable violations of the Due Process Clause. 

An authorized deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations,

or statutes. Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City

of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

Plaintiff does not allege why he did not receive the thermal underwear. If the

deprivation was not authorized, plaintiff most likely has not stated a colorable claim for relief. 

Accordingly, this claim is dismissed with leave to amend so that plaintiff may clarify this matter.

Plaintiff has not linked any of the other named defendants to the alleged

deprivations. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint, he must link each named defendant

to an alleged deprivation. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of the claims contained in the

amended complaint, but for the claim regarding withdrawal of funds from his trust fund against

defendant Keating, are dismissed; plaintiff is granted twenty days to file a second amended

complaint; if plaintiff does not file a second amended complaint within this time, the court will

order service of defendant Keating.

DATED: 6/26/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

arm1447.ame

Case 2:06-cv-01447-LKK -GGH Document 26 Filed 06/26/07 Page 3 of 3