Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00088/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00088-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lou Blanas
Defendant
Robert Martinez
Plaintiff

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff, CIV S-06-0088 ALA P

vs.

LOU BLANAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff Robert Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed a first

amended complaint alleging a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Examination of

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint finds that Defendants are employees of a governmental

entity.

I

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), when the litigant is a prisoner, the court must screen

complaints brought against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity. The court must dismiss the complaint if the claims contained in it, even when read

broadly, are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek money damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §

915(A)(b). A claim “is frivolous [if] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke

Case 2:06-cv-00088-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 01/24/08 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

2

 v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). “At this stage of the litigation, [this Court] must accept

[Plaintiff’s] allegations as true.” Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). “A court

may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts 

that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Id.

“To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct

complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the

conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.” Hydrick v. Hunter,

466 F.3d 676, 689 (9th Cr. 2006). 

II

Plaintiff has alleged that unsanitary and overcrowded conditions at the Sacramento

County Jail caused Plaintiff to suffer an infection that was not treated at the jail or at the

California State Prison Plaintiff was latter transferred to. Complaint at 3. Therefore, Plaintiff

has named as defendants the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the

Sacramento County Sheriffs Department. 

With respect to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the

Eleventh Amendment bars suits brought by private parties against a state or state agency unless

the state or the agency consents to such suit. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979);

Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978) ( per curiam); Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344,

1349-50 (9th Cir. 1982). Although the Eleventh Amendment is not jurisdictional, the court may

raise the defect on its own. Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389

(1998); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677-78 (1974). In the instant case, the State of

California has not consented to suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation are frivolous and must be dismissed. 

 With respect to the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department, a municipality cannot be

held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon a theory of respondeat superior. Monell v. Dep’t

of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Rather, a municipality can only be held liable

Case 2:06-cv-00088-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 01/24/08 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

3

under § 1983 if some official policy adopted by the municipality resulted in a violation of

constitutional rights. Id. While a policy that causes unsanitary conditions may result in a

violation of constitutional rights, Plaintiff must allege such. See Thompson v. City of Los

Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1448 (9th Cir. 1989). Here Plaintiff has not alleged that the unsanitary

and overcrowded conditions at the Sacramento County Jail were the result of some official

policy by the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against

the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department must be dismissed. 

III

To proceed Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint. Any amended complaint

must show that the federal court has jurisdiction and that Plaintiff’s action is brought in the right

place, that Plaintiff is entitled to relief if Plaintiff’s allegations are true, and must contain a

request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons 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). If Plaintiff contends he was the

victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their agreement to deprive

him of a specific federal constitutional right. 

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).

Case 2:06-cv-00088-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 01/24/08 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

4

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 Plaintiff’s 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, 1180 (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 district court must construe pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give a plaintiff an

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000). However,

the “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on

the assumption that all the allegations in the compliant are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Bell

Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, U.S. , 127 S.Ct. 1995, 1965 (2007) (citations omitted). 

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

within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177. 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. 

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.

Plaintiff is admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies he has made

Case 2:06-cv-00088-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 01/24/08 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

5

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. Prison rules require Plaintiff to obey all laws, including this one, and Plaintiff may

be punished by prison authorities for violation of the court’s rules and orders. See 15 CAL.

ADMIN. CODE § 3005.

A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative

remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth

v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). Plaintiff is further admonished that by signing an

amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted by existing law, including the law that

he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation of this rule Plaintiff risks dismissal of

his action.

IV

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s March 20, 2007, first amended complaint is dismissed; and 

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty-five (35) days from the date of this order to file a

second amended complaint. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action. 

/////

Dated: January 23, 2008

/s/ Arthur Alarcón 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-00088-FCD-DAD Document 12 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 5