Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05297/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05297-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEOPRIC BLOODSAW,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM L. CAREY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5297 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. 1) 

Theopric Bloodsaw (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on February 17, 2004, naming Tom Carey, J. Velasco,

Dr. Vo, J. Gentry, Elissague, J. Langham, Lt. Huebner as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that

these individuals are engaged in a “chain conspiracy” to obstruct justice. Plaintiff also alleges

generally that his constitutional rights have been violated. 

A. Screening Requirement

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

27

28

2

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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. 

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

B. Summary of the Complaint

Plaintiff’s complaint states simply that the named defendants are “involved in a chain

conspiracy they have no legal authority over me, medical malpractice professional negligence.”

Plaintiff cites to numerous penal codes and federal rules in addition to citing to the federal habeas

corpus statute 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his request for relief, plaintiff again states that the

individuals are conspiring to obstruct justice, that his constitutional rights have been violated and

that he wants justice served. 

a. Linkage Requirement

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

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 plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

27

28

3

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s

federal rights.

In this case, plaintiff fails to link any of the named defendants to an act or omission that

resulted in the violation of his federal constitutional rights. 

b. Conspiracy

In the context of conspiracy claims brought pursuant to section 1983, a complaint must

“allege [some] facts to support the existence of a conspiracy among the defendants.” Buckey v.

County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police

Department, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff must allege that defendants conspired

or acted jointly in concert and that some overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. 

Sykes v. State of California, 497 F.2d 197, 200 (9th Cir. 1974).

Plaintiff has not alleged any facts supporting the existence of a conspiracy between

defendants. Further, plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating that defendants violated his

constitutional rights. In order to state a cognizable claim for relief for conspiracy, plaintiff must

establish that defendants conspired to violate an underlying constitutional right.

Although plaintiff attaches documents to his complaint, they do not clarify his claims for

relief and consist of a printout of his criminal record, excerpts of a medical records, chronos, and

inmate appeal forms. However, nowhere does plaintiff attempt to clarify his claims for relief. 

The Court cannot peruse the attachments and try to formulate a claim for relief based on

documents submitted. The burden to plead a cognizable claim for relief that puts the defendants

on notice of the charges against them is on the plaintiff. 

C. Conclusion

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the defendants. The Court will provide plaintiff with

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

27

28

4

time to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to

do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the complaint how the conditions complained of resulted in

a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

The complaint must specifically state how each defendant is involved. Further, 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). 

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and ten

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number,

and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983 against any of the defendants. The Court will provide plaintiff with

time to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to

do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the complaint how the conditions complained of resulted in

a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 

The complaint must specifically state how each defendant is involved. Further, 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). 

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 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

27

28

5

Finally, plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint no longer serves any function in the

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and ten

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be

clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number,

and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend for failure to state any

claims on which relief can be granted;

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send plaintiff a blank civil rights complaint

form;

3. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff SHALL

file an AMENDED COMPLAINT; and 

Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order will result

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim

on which relief can be granted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05297-AWI-GSA Document 7 Filed 04/27/05 Page 5 of 5