Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01686/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01686-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Milton E. Galloway
Plaintiff
P. Watson
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILTON E. GALLOWAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

P. WATSON,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01686-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND, FOR FAILURE TO

STATE A CLAIM

(Doc. 1)

Screening Order

I. Screening Requirement

Plaintiff Milton E. Galloway (“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 this action on

November 21, 2007. 

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

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). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-01686-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 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

27

28

2

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S.

506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a short and

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

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Eighth Amendment Excessive Force Claim

The events at issue in this action allegedly occurred at the Sierra Conservation Center in

Jamestown, where Plaintiff was housed at the time. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant P. Watson, a

correctional officer, shoved him from behind on October 10, 2005, severely damaging his “already

delicate neck and spinal” cord. (Doc. 1, Comp., § IV.) 

The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment forbids the

“unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . .” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995

(1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “What is necessary to establish an unnecessary

and wanton infliction of pain . . . varies according to the nature of the alleged constitutional

violation.” Id. (citation omitted). Not “every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a

federal cause of action.” Id. at 9. “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force

. . . .” Id. at 9-10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Only force which is employed

“maliciously and sadistically to cause harm” rises to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation.

Id. at 7. 

Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to

relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965

(2007) (citations omitted). In this instance, there are no facts alleged which would support a claim

Case 1:07-cv-01686-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 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

27

28

3

that Defendant Watson acted maliciously and sadistically with the intent to cause harm. Although

it appears that Plaintiff had a preexisting condition which rendered him particularly vulnerable to

injury, this special vulnerability is not, by itself, sufficient to transform what is described as a shove

into a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to

clarify the basis of his constitutional claim in an amended complaint.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under federal

law. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the

deficiencies identified by the Court in this order.

Plaintiff is informed he must demonstrate in his complaint 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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is

involved. There can be no liability 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).

Further, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint,

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

(9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an

amended complaint; 

///

Case 1:07-cv-01686-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 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

27

28

4

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 5, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01686-LJO-GSA Document 8 Filed 06/05/08 Page 4 of 4