Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02469/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02469-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 Because plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to 1

change the docket to reflect that this case will proceed as a pro se case. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH RAY FISHER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2469 DFL JFM PS1

vs.

SACRAMENTO SHERIFF

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. 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(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02469-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 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

2

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(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. 

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. Hishon v. King &

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

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

Plaintiff names as defendants in his complaint the Sacramento County Sheriff’s

Department, Sacramento County, Lou Blanas, and Officer O’Connor. However, plaintiff made

no charging allegations against the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Sacramento

County, or Lou Blanas. Additionally, the court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint

regarding Officer O’Connor to be so vague that it is unable to determine whether the current

action is frivolous or whether it state s a claim for relief. Plaintiff did allege in his complaint that

he was assaulted by an officer, but did not state the identity of the officer, and did not clarify

whether that officer has been named as a defendant. 

The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain

statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

Case 2:05-cv-02469-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 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

 Respondeat superior is the doctrine holding an employer or principal liable for the 2

employee's or agent's wrongful acts committed within the scope of the employment or agency.

3

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). 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 an amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff must also demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a

deprivation of plaintiff's federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).

Further, the amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. 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, liability based on a theory of respondeat superior is not cognizable in a 2

§ 1983 action. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589

Case 2:05-cv-02469-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 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

4

F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Liability may be imposed on a

supervisor under section 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated in the deprivation

of constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent

them or (3) the supervisor implemented a policy “so deficient that the policy ‘itself is a

repudiation of constitutional rights’ and is ‘the moving force of the constitutional violation.’” 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298,

303-04 (5th Cir. 1987). A municipality may only be found liable under § 1983 for violation of an

individual’s constitutional rights when official policy “‘causes’ an employee to violate another’s

constitutional rights.” Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978).

Consequently, plaintiff should only name as defendants in his amended complaint those persons

directly involved in his actual claim, and should eliminate any persons or entities whom he has

named as defendants solely on the theory of respondeat superior. 

Finally, 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s March 28, 2006 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;

2. Plaintiff's December 6, 2005 complaint is dismissed;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; 

Case 2:05-cv-02469-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 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

5

4. Plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure

to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed; and

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to change the nature of suit code to 440 civil

rights and to add a pro se flag to the docket. 

DATED: July 27, 2006.

17/001

fish2469.14amd.new

Case 2:05-cv-02469-RRB -JFM Document 12 Filed 07/28/06 Page 5 of 5