Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02483/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02483-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2483 DFL GGH P

vs.

M. C. KRAMER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. By Order, filed on November 29,

2006, plaintiff was directed to file a completed application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which application was filed on December 21, 2006. 

Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court finds that plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be

granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 6
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

without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected

and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in

plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

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.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. 

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 6
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

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The allegations of plaintiff’s original complaint in their entirety are: 

On 9-14-05, defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) Pulley

conducted a cell search at which time he pushed buttons in the

panel of my TV set as well as destroyed several CDs by placing

heavy objects on top of my CDs causing them to become 

stitched (scratched?). Also important legal documents are missing.

Form Complaint, p. 3.

As relief, plaintiff seeks “to make employees of Folsom State Prison pay for my

damage [sic] property.” Id. Although plaintiff lists as additional defendants Warden M.C.

Kramer and Lt. Poole, he makes no allegations at all against them. Plaintiff attaches a series of

exhibits to his complaint, including his administrative appeals regarding the search, wherein,

inter alia, he claims that defendant Pulley “didn’t follow guidelines in conducting the search.”

Complaint, Exhibit, p. 8.

Some weeks after filing the original complaint, plaintiff filed an “amended

complaint,” without specifically naming any defendants or setting forth any allegations at all, but

seeking damages and injunctive relief against prison officials for wholly unspecified violations of

the Eighth Amendment, claiming a right to personal safety and a right to be free of cruel and

unusual punishment and excessive force. Plaintiff neglects, however, to state how he was

deprived of any of these rights or by whom. Nor does he set forth what form he seeks injunctive

relief to take. 

 Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires “sufficient allegations to

put defendants fairly on notice of the claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795,

798 (9th Cir. 1991)). Accord Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 52 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir.

1995) (amended complaint with vague and scanty allegations fails to satisfy the notice

requirement of Rule 8.) As plaintiff makes no allegations at all in either his original or putative

amended complaint against defendants Kramer and Poole, these defendants are dismissed, but

plaintiff will be granted leave to amend. 

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 6
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

As to defendant Pulley, against whom he appears to be alleging in his original

complaint an unauthorized intentional deprivation of personal property, 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). The California Legislature has provided a remedy for tort claims against public

officials in the California Government Code, §§ 900, et seq. 

To the extent plaintiff has set forth any facts, he has not alleged made allegations

which suggest that the deprivation was authorized. Thus, plaintiff’s allegations against defendant

Pulley concerning the taking of his property do not state a cognizable claim for relief. Defendant

Pulley will be dismissed but plaintiff will be granted leave to amend.

As to either plaintiff’s original or amended complaints, plaintiff has set forth no

factual allegations supporting a claim of a violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth

Amendment and names no individual who has personally subjected him to any force, excessive

or otherwise. To make out an Eighth Amendment claim for excessive force, plaintiff must allege

the circumstances that support a claim of the deliberate use of excessive or unjustified force

against him by an individual he names. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327, 106 S.Ct.

1078,1088 (1986). Plaintiff’s original and amended complaints are dismissed with leave to

amend. 

To the extent that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, should he make out colorable

claims in a future amended complaint against defendants at Folsom State Prison, the court notes

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 6
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

that the docket of this case indicates that plaintiff has been transferred, since the filing of this

action, to High Desert State Prison. When an inmate seeks injunctive relief concerning an

institution at which he is no longer incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot. See 

Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1989); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.

1986). See also Reimers v. Oregon, 863 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff has

demonstrated no reasonable possibility that he will be incarcerated at Folsom State Prison at any

predictable time in the future. Accordingly, plaintiff should not seek injunctive relief in any

further amended complaint with respect to defendants at Folsom.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the 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 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. See 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 amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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 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 each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 6
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

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

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

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 

The fee shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Both plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on November 8, 2006, and his

putative amended complaint, filed on November 22, 2006, are dismissed for the reasons

discussed above, with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days from the date

of service of this order. Failure to file a second amended complaint will result in a

recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 4/11/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

bont2483.bnf

Case 2:06-cv-02483-JAM-GGH Document 9 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 6