Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00972/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00972-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carrera
Defendant
Scott Emerson
Plaintiff
F. Foulk
Defendant
Gonzalez
Defendant
Hernandez
Defendant
Lewis
Defendant
Luigs
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

SCOTT EMERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. FOULK, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0972 TLN CKD P

ORDER

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

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

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. 

§1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the 

initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. 

Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding 

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by 

the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account 

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Case 2:14-cv-00972-TLN-CKD Document 10 Filed 07/15/14 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

27

28

2

For screening purposes, the complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as to defendant Luigs. Plaintiff asserts that Luigs used 

excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. If the allegations of the 

complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

As to defendant Warden Foulk, 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). Plaintiff’s allegations as to Foulk fail to “plausibly establish the defendant’s 

‘knowledge of’ and ‘acquiescence in’ the unconstitutional conduct of his subordinates.” Hydrick 

v. Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 941 (9th Cir. 2012). Thus plaintiff fails to state a claim as to this 

supervisory defendant. 

As to the remaining four defendants – Carrera, Gonzalez, Lewis, and Hernandez –

plaintiff alleges in conclusory terms that they witnessed Luigs using excessive force and failed to 

intervene. Plaintiff’s allegations as to these defendants are insufficient to state a claim. However, 

plaintiff will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint to attempt to state a claim against 

these defendants.

Plaintiff will be given 30 days from the date of service of this order to amend his 

complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. Plaintiff is not required to file an amended 

complaint, but failure to do so will be construed as plaintiff’s consent to dismiss the abovementioned defendants and causes of action with prejudice.

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); 

Case 2:14-cv-00972-TLN-CKD Document 10 Filed 07/15/14 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

27

28

3

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. 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 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Foulk, Carrera, Gonzalez, Lewis, and Hernandez

are dismissed with leave to amend. Additionally, all claims except an excessive force claim 

against defendant Luigs are dismissed with leave to amend.

4. If plaintiff elects to amend, any amended complaint must bear the docket number 

assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.”

5. Upon the filing of 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: July 15, 2014

2 / emer0972.1new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00972-TLN-CKD Document 10 Filed 07/15/14 Page 3 of 3