Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00074/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00074-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Derrick Cooper
Plaintiff
Leathem
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK COOPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEATHEM,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0074 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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

governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (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 

Case 2:15-cv-00074-AC Document 9 Filed 10/20/15 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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more 

than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual 

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 

U.S. at 555. 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).

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, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

Case 2:15-cv-00074-AC Document 9 Filed 10/20/15 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

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (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).

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

In the present case, plaintiff has identified Correctional Officer Leathem as the sole 

defendant in this action. Plaintiff alleges in his amended complaint as follows. Defendant 

Leathem is a control booth officer and can respond to any problem within his sight. Plaintiff 

suffers from lung disease and receives breathing treatments as needed. However, when plaintiff 

asked defendant Leathem to go to the medical unit, the defendant mocked him, flicked lights in 

the control booth, and made disrespectful statements over the public address system. In terms of 

relief, plaintiff requests damages. (Compl. at 3 & Attach.) 

DISCUSSION

The allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint are so vague and conclusory that the 

court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for 

relief. The complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair 

notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and 

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff 

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 

support his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. In the interest of justice, the court will grant

plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must allege facts 

demonstrating how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal 

constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The second 

amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the 

Case 2:15-cv-00074-AC Document 9 Filed 10/20/15 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

deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. 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, 423 U.S. 362; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson, 588 F.2d at 

743. Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not 

sufficient. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268.

It is clear from the allegations of plaintiff’s amended complaint that he is dissatisfied

defendant Leathem’s response to his medical needs. As the court previously advised plaintiff, 

however, the Supreme Court has held that inadequate medical care does not constitute cruel and 

unusual punishment cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rises to the level of 

“deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

In general, deliberate indifference may be shown when prison officials deny, delay, or 

intentionally interfere with medical treatment, or may be shown by the way in which prison 

officials provide medical care. Hutchinson v. United States, 838 F.2d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir.

1988).

In any second amended complaint plaintiff elects to file, he will need to allege facts 

demonstrating how defendant Leathem’s actions rose to the level of “deliberate indifference.” 

Plaintiff will also need to clarify what injury, if any, he suffered as a result of defendant 

Leathem’s alleged conduct. Before it can be said that a prisoner’s civil rights have been abridged, 

“the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or 

‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of action.” Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 

458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06). See also Wood v. Housewright, 900 

F.2d 1332, 1334 (9th Cir. 1990) (“In determining deliberate indifference, we scrutinize the 

particular facts and look for substantial indifference in the individual case, indicating more than 

mere negligence or isolated occurrences of neglect.”). 

Plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make his 

second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00074-AC Document 9 Filed 10/20/15 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

Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the prior pleading no longer serves 

any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original complaint, 

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 7) is dismissed;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 

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

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure 

to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this 

action without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a civil 

rights action.

Dated: October 19, 2015

DAD:9

coop0074.14am

Case 2:15-cv-00074-AC Document 9 Filed 10/20/15 Page 5 of 5