Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05760/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05760-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Bick
Defendant
California Department of Corrections
Defendant
Diontay R. Shackelford
Plaintiff
Sierra Conservation Center
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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

DIONTAY R. SHACKELFORD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

 CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04- 5760 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the complaint, originally filed in the

Sacramento Division of this Court.

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:04-cv-05760-OWW-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (en banc). th

In the instant case, plaintiff brings action against the California Department of Corrections

(“CDC”); Sierra Conservation Center and Correctional Officer J. Bick. Plaintiff alleges that he

attempted to violate a CDC Rule of Conduct but before he could, he was approached by Officer Bick

who told him he would give him three options: receive a CDC violation, do 150 pushups, or do 50

pushups with his boxers halfway down. Plaintiff refused. 

Plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a cognizable claim for relief for violation of his

constitutional rights. While the alleged statements are disturbing, mere verbal harassment or abuse

is not sufficient to state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oltarzewski v.

Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff does not indicate whether he actually violated

the Rule of Conduct nor does he describe any subsequent action on the part defendant Bick that may

raise constitutional concerns. Without more, the statements allegedly made, cannot form the basis of

a constitutional violation.

Moreover, plaintiff cannot sustain an action against the CDC or a state prison. The Eleventh

Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against an unconsenting state. 

Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec. Co., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted);

see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122 (1996); Puerto Rico Aqueduct

Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993); Austin v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 939

F.2d 676, 677 (9th Cir. 1991). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies as well as

those where the state itself is named as a defendant. See Natural Resources Defense Council v.

California Dep’t of Tranp., 96 F.3d 420, 421 (9th Cir. 1996); Brook, 951 F.2d at 1053; Taylor v.

List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (concluding that Nevada Department of Prisons was a state

agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Mitchell v. Los Angeles Community College

Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Because the Sierra Conservation Center is a part of the

California Department of Corrections, which is a state agency, both it and CDC are entitled to

Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. 

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court

Case 1:04-cv-05760-OWW-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

will grant plaintiff one additional opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this complaint as

discussed in this order. Failure to cure the deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without

leave to amend.

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). 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); Johnson v. Duffy,

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

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 15-220 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 complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket

number assigned this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original

and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

Case 1:04-cv-05760-OWW-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05760-OWW-DLB Document 16 Filed 10/04/06 Page 4 of 4