Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01007/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01007-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Larry Darnell Winn
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY DARNELL WINN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1007 OWW SMS P

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND 

 Larry Winn (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 5, 2005, naming the California Department of

Corrections as the sole Defendant in the action. Plaintiff alleges that he is experiencing

“permanent damage [and] disabilities thru negligence.” Plaintiff provides no information other

than this statement. 

A. SCREENING STANDARD

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

Case 1:05-cv-01007-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 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

“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). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). 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). 

B. ANALYSIS 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

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. 

As a preliminary matter, the California Department of Corrections is not a “person”

within the meaning of Section 1983. See, Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1788) (per

curiam) (concluding that the suit against the state Board of Corrections was barred by the

Eleventh Amendment; Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1993 (en banc)

)concluding that the Arizona Department of Corrections was an arm of the state and thus, not a

person for § 1983 purposes); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir.

1991 (same); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that a state agency is

Case 1:05-cv-01007-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 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

immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment). 

In addition, even were Plaintiff to name a proper Defendant, his Complaint fails to link

any act or omission to an individual. 

C. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any claims upon which relief

can be granted under § 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with time to file a first Amended

Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above should he wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

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

1980). The Amended Complaint must name a proper Defendant and specifically state how each

Defendant is involved. Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

D. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within THIRTY (30) days

from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

Case 1:05-cv-01007-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 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

a. File an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court

in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01007-OWW -SMS Document 5 Filed 09/07/05 Page 4 of 4