Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01002/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01002-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James P. Ray
Plaintiff
Solano County Jail
Defendant
Gary R. Stanton
Defendant

Document Text:

ORDER 

PAGE - 1 

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

IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. RAY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

2:08-cv-1002 RSM 

ORDER DISMISSING 

DEFENDANT GARY R. 

STANTON WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

However, the complaint has not been screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), nor has 

process been served. 

 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). 

 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 

Case 2:08-cv-01002-RSM Document 13 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 3
ORDER 

PAGE - 2 

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

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

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. 

 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 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). 

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a 

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). 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). 

 Here, the complaint adequately states a claim against defendant Solano County Jail but 

fails to state a claim against defendant Gary R. Stanton. To state a claim, plaintiff must explain 

how defendant Stanton violated plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights. Indeed, the body of 

plaintiff’s complaint does not mention defendant Stanton. Thus Plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Stanton are dismissed with leave to amend. 

Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint. If plaintiff chooses to 

amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted 

in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 

1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 

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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation 

Case 2:08-cv-01002-RSM Document 13 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 

PAGE - 3 

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

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1982). 

 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in 

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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 Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original 

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an 

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s claims against Gary R. Stanton are dismissed for the reasons 

discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of 

service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the dismissal of this 

defendant from this action. 

 2. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, 

the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants. 

 Dated this 5th day of February, 2010. 

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01002-RSM Document 13 Filed 02/08/10 Page 3 of 3