Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06377/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06377-0/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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong377dwlta 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW E. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

B. CURRY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-6377 JF (PR)

ORDER DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket No. 4)

Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the instant civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Correctional Training Facility personnel. 

Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in an earlier order. The Court

will dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a

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

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify

any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is

Case 5:07-cv-06377-JF Document 6 Filed 05/13/08 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

27

28

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong377dwlta 2

immune from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be

liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1988). 

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. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

In his complaint, Plaintiff claims that prison officials violated his constitutional

right to due process because they found him guilty of violating prison rules based on

insufficient evidence. Plaintiff does not allege, however, even the most basic facts

regarding his discipline, nor does he attach the forms allege any facts that show that any

of the Defendants violated any of his constitutional rights. Specifically, Plaintiff does not

allege when, where, how or by whom he was disciplined, what punishment he received,

or what evidence was relied upon that fails to meet the low, “some evidence” requirement

of due process. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985). Plaintiff also does

not attach any of the Rules Violation Reports that would contain such information.

Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged how any individual Defendant was involved in

violating his constitutional rights. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s conduct that proximately caused a

violation of his rights. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). Here, the 

complaint lists nine individual Defendants, but Plaintiff simply alleges that “Defendants”

as a whole violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff has not alleged how each individual

Defendant was involved in his discipline. Plaintiff has named various supervisor officials

as Defendants; the simple fact that they are supervisors does not by itself suffice to plead

a § 1983 claim, however, because only those individual officials who actually engage in

unlawful conduct can be held liable. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,

690 (1978) (rejecting concept of respondeat superior liability in § 1983 context and

requiring individual liability for constitutional violation); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040,

Case 5:07-cv-06377-JF Document 6 Filed 05/13/08 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

27

28

Partial Dismissal Order; Order of Service; Directing Defendants to File Dispositive Motion or Notice Regarding Such Motion

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.07\Armstrong251srv 3

1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding personal participation required for finding of supervisorial

liability based on alleged constitutional violations). 

Plaintiff will be given leave to amend to cure the deficiencies described above.

CONCLUSION

1. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within thirty days

from the date this order is filed to cure the deficiencies described above. The amended

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (07-6377 JF

(PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an

amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must include in

his amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the defendants he

wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff

may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this

action. 

 2 It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

3. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket

No. 4) is DENIED as unnecessary in light of the Court’s prior order granting such leave.

This order terminates Docket No. 4.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

5/8/08

Case 5:07-cv-06377-JF Document 6 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 3