Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01192/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01192-5/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

As noted in a separate order, Plaintiff filed a second, duplicative amended 1

complaint. As the second amended complaint Plaintiff filed (Doc. 15) also violates Rule 8 by

attaching almost 100 pages of exhibits in support of his claims, and the body of the complaint is

the same as the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint has been disregarded. 

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (Doc. 14).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY ARTHER ANDREOZZI, No. CIV S-09-1192-JAM-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 14).1

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

Case 2:09-cv-01192-JAM-CMK Document 18 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 4
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

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

and conclusory. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed as violating Rule 8’s pleading

requirements. The undersigned identified Plaintiff’s claims as possible, and informed Plaintiff

that his complaint was insufficient to state a claim for denial of medical treatment as to any

individual with the exception of defendant Lasane. The undersigned explained to Plaintiff what

was required in order to state a claim for denial of medical treatment, including the necessity to

link each defendant to any alleged constitutional violation. The undersigned also explained to

Plaintiff that some of the defendants he named were immune under the Eleventh Amendment. 

The court provided Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure the noted

defects. Plaintiff has done so, and as addressed by separate order, the undersigned found service

to be proper for defendant Lasane.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint, however, fails to cure some defects. Specifically,

as mentioned by the undersigned in the first screening order, Plaintiff fails to set forth any

factually allegations against any defendant other that Lasane. The undersigned previously

informed Plaintiff that:

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01192-JAM-CMK Document 18 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 4
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

[t]o state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege

an actual connection or link between the actions of the named

defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t 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). Vague and conclusory allegations

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the

alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d

628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a claim against any defendant other

than Lesane as he fails to make any factual allegations against any other defendant. His amended

complaint continues to list several other defendants, including those previously identified as

immune under the Eleventh Amendment, but no facts are alleged linking any of the defendants to

Plaintiff’s alleged constitutional violation. It appears Plaintiff is either unwilling or unable to

cure this defect. 

Because it does not appear possible that Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies

identified herein, Plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action proceed

against defendant Lesane only, and all other defendants be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:09-cv-01192-JAM-CMK Document 18 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 4
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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive

the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 30, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01192-JAM-CMK Document 18 Filed 05/04/10 Page 4 of 4