Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00269/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeffrey Beard
Defendant
Edmund G. Brown
Defendant
J. Clark Kelso
Defendant
Balwinder Singh Tung
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

BALWINDER SINGH TUNG,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

Defendants

Case No. 1:13 cv 00269 AWI GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE 

AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement

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

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

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). “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). 

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 6
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

“Rule 8(a)‟s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff‟s 

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the 

liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff‟s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 

490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not 

supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat‟l Credit Union 

Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 

(9th Cir. 1982)).

II. Plaintiff’s Claims

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil rights action against Governor 

Edmund Brown, CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard, and Federal Receiver J. Clark Kelso. 

Plaintiff‟s complaint consists of a rambling narrative, setting forth a list of various 

grievances that Plaintiff has had over the years while in CDCR custody. Plaintiff appears to set 

forth the following claims: Retaliation and double bunking with a gang member while housed at 

Soledad State Prison in 2004; Conditions of Confinement at Soledad State Prison in 2005; A 

physical assault while housed at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison on 2006; An assault at Avenal 

State Prison. Plaintiff also sets forth generalized claims regarding the following: Inadequate 

medical care; Inadequate winter clothing; Exposing inmate to the risk of nutritional disease; 

Overcrowding; Underground regulations and unlawful parole hearings; Violations of the 

California Government Code. 

The Court notes initially that the only defendants named in the complaint are state 

officials. Government officials may not be held liable for the actions of their subordinates under 

a theory of respondeat superior. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009). Since a 

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 6
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

government official cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability for section 1983 

actions, Plaintiff must plead that the official has violated the Constitution through his own 

individual actions. Id. at 673. In other words, to state a claim for relief under section 1983, 

Plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that 

demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff‟s federal rights. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

Further, Plaintiff sets forth numerous claims over several years and occurring at different 

institutions. The complaint is a clear violation of Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. “A party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or 

third-party claim, may join, either as independent or alternate claims, as many claims, legal, 

equitable or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). Thus, 

multiple claims against a single party are permissible, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should 

not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of morass (a multiple claim, 

multiple defendant) suit produces, but also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees. 

The Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous suits or appeals that any 

prisoner may file without the prepayment of the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). George v. 

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). 

Because the complaint is in violation of Rule 18, it must be dismissed. The Court will 

grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint that sets forth only related claims. Plaintiff 

must clearly articulate his claim, identify the individual defendant or defendants that violated his 

protected interest, and charge each of the named defendants with specific conduct that indicates 

how they violated that right. To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) 

the defendant acted under color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured 

by the Constitution or federal law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th 

Cir. 2006). “A person deprives another of a constitutional right, where that person „does an 

affirmative act, participates in another‟s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that 

person] is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” 

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 6
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

Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 

743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite causal connection can be established not only by some 

kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of 

acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the 

constitutional injury.‟” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44). Plaintiff has not specifically charged 

each defendant with conduct indicating that they knew of and disregarded a serious risk to 

Plaintiff‟s health, resulting in injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply 

by alleging a serious medical condition and then charge defendants with the vague allegation that 

they neglected her condition. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each defendant was 

aware of a specific harm to Plaintiff, and acted with deliberate indifference to that harm. 

Plaintiff has failed to do so here. The complaint should therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, 

however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In order to 

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where 

that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under 

color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his or her own words, what happened. 

Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular right described 

by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

III. Conclusion and Order

The Court has screened Plaintiff‟s complaint and finds that it does not state any claims 

Upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the

opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this

order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he

may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended

complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff‟s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff‟s constitutional or other federal 

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 6
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

rights, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 

567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an 

original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d 

at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord

Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff‟s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk‟s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file 

an amended complaint; 

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended 

complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this 

action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2014 

/s/ Gary S. Austin 

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 5 of 6
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 6

 

Case 1:13-cv-00269-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 05/27/14 Page 6 of 6