Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01076/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01076-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Defendant
Paul Winfield
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL WINFIELD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1076 LKK GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 8, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 

On September 6, 2007, plaintiff filed a letter which the court construes as the amended

complaint. For the following reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to file a

second amended complaint.

The only named defendant is Governor Schwarzenegger. Plaintiff alleges that

three years ago defendant Schwarzenegger beat him. Plaintiff goes on to allege that he got into

an altercation with a prison guard and was then given a shot of Haldol which made plaintiff feel

uncomfortable. Plaintiff alleges that he is suing defendant Schwarzenegger because he lets his

employees get away with these violations. 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01076-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Based on the allegations described above, it is unclear if plaintiff is claiming that

defendant Schwarzenegger beat plaintiff or if plaintiff was beaten by prison officials. Plaintiff

must clarify this in the second amended complaint.

It appears that plaintiff is alleging that defendant Schwarzenegger is responsible

for the alleged misconduct of prison officials because he is the governor. 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 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), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). 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 is basing defendant Schwarzenegger’s liability on the theory of

respondeat superior. As indicated above, supervisory personnel are not liable under § 1983 for

Case 2:07-cv-01076-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 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

3

the actions of their employees based on this theory. Accordingly, these claims are dismissed with

leave to amend.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s letter filed September 6, 2007, is construed as an amended

complaint; the amended complaint is dismissed with thirty days to file a second amended

complaint; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

DATED: 10/17/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

win1076.ame

Case 2:07-cv-01076-LKK -GGH Document 10 Filed 10/17/07 Page 3 of 3