Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02921/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick D. Dempsey
Plaintiff
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK D. DEMPSEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

“JOHN DOES 1-10, ” 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 09-2921 JSW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

(Docket No. 3)

Plaintiff, formerly a prisoner of the State of California, has filed a civil rights

complaint complaining about violations of his rights while incarcerated at the Santa Rita

County Jail in Dublin, California. Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, which is now GRANTED in a separate order filed simultaneously (docket no.

3). In this order, the Court reviews Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and dismisses the amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights were violated

by certain policies he was subjected to at the Santa Rita County Jail, including denying

him proper credit for “good time” without notice, improperly treating those prisoners

incarcerated as a result of a parole revocation differently than those newly convicted and

transferring those newly convicted prisoners out of the jail to the California Department

of Corrections and Rehabilitation faster than those whose incarceration occurred because

their parole had been revoked. Plaintiff only names a single Defendant, the Governor of

Case 3:09-cv-02921-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 5
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

California. He has also alleged responsibility on the part of ten “John Doe” Defendants. 

However, throughout the complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly alleges that “Defendants” are

liable, without identifying how the actions of any of the named Defendants resulted in a

constitutional violation (including the 10 “John Doe” Defendants against whom he

alleges no allegations whatsoever). Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently identify how any

individual named Defendant has violated his rights. Therefore, the complaint is

dismissed with leave to amend as set forth below.

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state

law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

II Legal Claims

Plaintiff repeatedly complains about the actions of “Defendants” that has resulted

in the deprivation of his rights. However, Plaintiff does not identify how any specific

individual violated his rights. Therefore, the complaint will be DISMISSED. However,

Plaintiff will be provided with leave to amend the complaint to correct this deficiency.

A complaint that fails to state the specific acts of the defendant which violated the

Case 3:09-cv-02921-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 5
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

plaintiff's rights fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1328 n.5 (9th Cir. 1982). 

District courts must afford pro se prisoner litigants an opportunity to amend to correct

any deficiency in their complaints. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to provide a short and plain and separate statement

about the specific conduct of each individual Defendant that he asserts is responsible for

a constitutional violation. Plaintiff must specifically identify what any named Defendant

did or did not do in order to state a claim against them, including any “John Doe”

Defendants. 

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff must establish legal liability of each person

named as a Defendant for the claimed violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed

on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the plaintiff can show that the

defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected right. See Leer v.

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121,

1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the

meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's

affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes

the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g.,

Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison official's failure to

intervene to prevent 8th Amendment violation may be basis for liability). Sweeping

conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead "set forth specific facts

as to each individual defendant's" deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

With regard to Governor Schwarzenegger, Plaintiff does not specify any

allegation against him, other than “neglect of his duties.” In raising a claim against a

supervisory employee, Plaintiff should be mindful that a supervisor may be liable under

Case 3:09-cv-02921-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 5
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

§ 1983 only upon a showing of (1) personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation

or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the

constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.

1991) (en banc). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for constitutional

violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations,

or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d

1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Further, “John Doe” defendant liability must also be properly alleged. Plaintiff

included 10 “John Doe” Defendants in his complaint, but he does not identify

specifically what each “Doe” Defendant did. A plaintiff may use Doe defendant

designations to refer to defendants whose names are unknown; however, he must number

them in the complaint, e.g., “John Doe 1,” “John Doe 2,” so that each numbered John

Doe refers to a different specific person. Plaintiff must identify how each such named

Defendant is liable for a constitutional violation. Although the use of Doe defendants is

acceptable to withstand dismissal of the complaint at the initial review stage, Plaintiff is

cautioned that using “John Doe” defendants creates its own problem: those persons

cannot be served with process in this action until they are identified by their real names. 

Plaintiff must promptly take steps to discover the names of the unnamed defendants and

provide that information to the Court in an amendment to his pleading. The burden

remains on the Plaintiff and the Court will not undertake to investigate the names and

identities of unnamed defendants.

Without this basic information, the complaint cannot proceed. The amended

complaint need not be long. In fact, a brief and clear statement with regard to each claim

listing how each individual Defendant violated his rights is preferable. The amended

complaint should comply with Rule 8 and identify how any named Defendant is

responsible. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Case 3:09-cv-02921-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/09/10 Page 4 of 5
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 5

Plaintiff will be provided with thirty days in which to amend to correct the deficiencies

in his complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. The complaint is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, as indicated

above. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of

this order in which he asserts factual allegations against all Defendants named therein.

The amendment must include the caption and civil case number used in this order and

the words “COURT ORDERED AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. Failure

to amend within the designated time will result in dismissal of the complaint.

2. Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. "[A] plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint

which are not alleged in the amended complaint." London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644

F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981). Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no

longer defendants. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 915 (1992). 

3. It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 04/09/10 

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02921-JSW Document 7 Filed 04/09/10 Page 5 of 5