Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02025/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02025-3/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

VICTOR WYATT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2025 LKK EFB P

vs.

CITY OF CHICO POLICE DEPT.,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order

filed January 3, 2007, the court found that plaintiff had stated a claim against defendants Lara,

Palmer, and Winnings. On February 2, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Before the

court had an opportunity to screen the amended complaint, plaintiff filed a second amended

complaint on March 19, 2007. The court has now screened the second amended complaint and

for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, finds that it states a cognizable claim against

defendants Lara, Palmer, Winnings, and Gama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Plaintiff asserts a claim against a private citizen, defendant Teri Gama, under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (“Section 1983”), which provides a means of redress to individuals who have been

deprived of federal constitutional or federal statutory rights by persons acting under color of

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 7
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

state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Generally, private parties

do not act under color of state law. Price v. Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir.1991). The

Supreme Court however, has noted that if engaged jointly with state officials with respect to a

challenged action, private persons are acting under color of law for Section 1983 purposes.

Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 28; see also Price, 939 F.2d at 708 (noting that “a person may

become a state actor by conspiring with a state official” but that “ ‘merely resorting to the courts 

. . . does not make a party a co-conspirator or a joint actor with the judge’ ”) (quoting Dennis,

449 U.S. at 28). Plaintiff alleges that defendant Gama colluded with defendant Lara, a police

officer, to revoke plaintiff’s parole. This allegation states a due process claim.

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a

cognizable claim against defendants Carine Nelson or the City of Chico Police Department. 

Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Lara, Palmer, Winnings, and Gama,

and pursue his claims against only those defendants or he may delay serving any defendant and

attempt again to state a cognizable claim against defendants Nelson and the City of Chico Police

Department.

If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim against

defendants Nelson and the City of Chico Police Department, he has 30 days so to do. He is not

obligated to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Lara, Palmer, Winnings, and

Gama, against whom he has stated a cognizable claim for relief, then within 20 days he must

return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. In this event the court will construe

plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all claims against defendants Nelson and City of

Chico Police Department without prejudice. 

Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is

brought in the right place and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It

must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 7
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

who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional

right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the

deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to

perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). 

In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered paragraphs. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a single defendant. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate transactions or

occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d

1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved any

heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ. P.

84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading).

Plaintiff’s claims must be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and

directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting

point of a simplified pleading system, which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a

claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. 

Plaintiff must eliminate from his pleading all preambles, introductions, argument,

speeches, explanations, stories, griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible

defenses, summaries, and the like. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996)

(affirming dismissal of § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El

v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597 (1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure is fully warranted” in prisoner cases). A plaintiff bringing a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that at the time of the alleged harm, the defendant was a

state actor, acting under color of state law, or participating in a state actor’s act under color of

state law, as discussed regarding defendant Gama, above. Plaintiff identifies defendant Nelson

as only “female” and makes no allegations that she was a state actor acting under state law at the

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 7
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

time. Even if she was, the facts alleged are insufficient to state a cause of action because verbal

harassment or abuse does not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation. See Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir.1987). The court finds that plaintiff has not stated a claim

against defendant Nelson.

“A local government entity is liable under § 1983 when ‘action pursuant to official

municipal policy of some nature cause[s] a constitutional tort.’ ” Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d

1470, 1473-74 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)).

In addition, a local governmental entity may be liable if it has a “policy of inaction and such

inaction amounts to a failure to protect constitutional rights.” Id. at 1474 (citing City of Canton

v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989)); see also Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91. The custom or policy

of inaction, however, must be the result of a “conscious,” City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 389, or 

“‘deliberate choice to follow a course of action ... made from among various alternatives by the

official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in

question.’” Oviatt, 954 F.2d at 1477 (quoting Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469,

483-84 (1986) (plurality opinion)). Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts that defendant Lara

was acting pursuant to official policy of the City of Chico Police Department. Indeed, the facts

he has alleged point away from such a conclusion. Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts that the

City of Chico Police Department had a policy of inaction that amounted to a failure to protect

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The court therefore finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim

against the City of Chico Police Department. 

The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand plaintiff’s pleading

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading including many

defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged constitutional

injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely will result in

delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions. 

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 4 of 7
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

If plaintiff’s pleading is deficient on account of an omission or technical defect, the court

will not dismiss it without first identifying the problem and giving plaintiff an opportunity to

cure it. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s pleading will be

construed “liberally” to determine if plaintiff has a claim but it will be dismissed if plaintiff

violates the federal rules, once explained, or the court’s plain orders.

An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior

pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff

files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.

By signing a third amended complaint plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable inquiry

and has evidentiary support for his allegations and that for violation of this rule the court may

impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

Accordingly, the court hereby orders that:

1. Claims against defendants Nelson and the City of Chico Police Department are

dismissed with leave to amend. Within 30 days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his

complaint to attempt to state cognizable claims against these defendants. Plaintiff is not obliged

to amend his complaint.

2. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient at least to state cognizable claims against

defendants Lara, Palmer, Winnings, and Gama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the

Clerk of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed March

19, 2007, four USM-285 forms and instructions for service of process on defendants Lara,

Palmer, Winnings, and Gama. Within 20 days of service of this order plaintiff may return the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed

USM-285 forms, and five copies of the endorsed March 19, 2007, complaint. The court will

transmit them to the United States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. 

Defendants Lara, Palmer, Winnings, and Gamam will be required to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1). In this event, the court will

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 5 of 7
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

construe plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective

claims against defendants Nelson and the City of Chico Police Department without prejudice.

Dated: November 20, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR WYATT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2025 LKK EFB P

vs.

CITY OF CHICO POLICE DEPT.,

et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

 / OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's 

order filed .

One completed summons

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-02025-EFB Document 31 Filed 11/20/07 Page 7 of 7