Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00433/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00433-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Afra Aldakak
Plaintiff
Harry
Defendant
Johnson
Defendant
Warren
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 

AFRA ALDAKAK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HARRY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-0433 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a county prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff 

has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge for all purposes pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). ECF No. 5. 

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

1915(a). ECF Nos. 7, 9. 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 this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 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. 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 1 of 7
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

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). 

I. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 

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). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 

1989) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”) (citation and internal 

quotations omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of 

what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to 

survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient “to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading must 

contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a 

legally cognizable right of action.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Charles Alan Wright & 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 1216 (3d ed. 2004)). 

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual 

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556). 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 Hosp. Trs., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as 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). 

II. Complaint 

Plaintiff identifies as defendants Sgt. Warren, Sgt. Johnson, Deputy Harry, and a Doe 

defendant. ECF No. 1 at 2. He alleges that while being escorted from a preliminary hearing, the 

escorting deputy “was making racial comments like lil terrorist, terrorist & asking about my 

sexuality.” Id. at 3. He then refers the court to his attached grievances. Id. The first grievance 

gives a slightly more detailed recollection of the allegation that plaintiff was verbally harassed by 

the unknown officer that escorted him. Id. at 4. It indicates that defendant Warren told plaintiff 

to submit a grievance about his issues and that the unknown deputy made his racist comments to 

defendant Harry. Id. The second grievance states that plaintiff was told he was going to be 

reclassified because another inmate said that he was trying to get her to pass something to another 

pod, but that he never attempted to pass anything. The grievance goes on to state that plaintiff 

has not caused any trouble since arriving at the jail and that he has been harassed because of his 

nationality. Id. at 5. He alleges that some of the deputies call him “lil terrorist” instead of by his 

name. Id. 

III. Failure to State a Claim 

In order to state a claim, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named 

defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no liability 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 3 of 7
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

actions and the claimed deprivation. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Neither the complaint nor the attached 

grievances make any reference to defendant Johnson and the only references to defendants 

Warren and Harry are that Warren told him to file a grievance and the racist comments were 

made to Harry. ECF No. 1. This is insufficient to show that the defendants violated plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights. 

The complaint must also be dismissed because plaintiff’s allegations that he was verbally 

harassed fail to state a claim that could entitle plaintiff to relief. “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) (quoting Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th 

Cir. 1979)); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that “verbal harassment 

generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment”); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 

1987) (a “mere naked threat” from prison guards does not violate the Eighth Amendment); see 

also DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (“Standing alone, simple verbal 

harassment does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, deprive a prisoner of a protected 

liberty interest, or deny a prisoner equal protection of the laws.”) (citing Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 

950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987) (Eighth Amendment); Patton v. Przybylski, 822 F.2d 697, 700 (7th Cir. 

1987) (due process); Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 705-06 (5th Cir. 1999) (equal 

protection)). 

Plaintiff’s second grievance, however, states that he believes he is being harassed because 

of his nationality (ECF No. 1 at 5), and the use of racial slurs may be evidence of discriminatory 

intent. It appears that plaintiff may be attempting to allege that he is being treated differently than 

other inmates because of his race. If this is the case, plaintiff may be able to state a claim for 

violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause requires 

the state to treat all similarly situated people equally. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 

473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). “To state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause, a 

plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him 

based upon his membership in a protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 4 of 7
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

Cir. 2003) (citing Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)). Because plaintiff 

may be able to make an equal protection claim, he will be given an opportunity to amend the 

complaint. However, if the discrimination plaintiff suffered was limited to the verbal harassment 

he identified in the complaint, he will be unable to state a claim for relief. Freeman v. Arpaio, 

125 F.3d 732, 738 (9th Cir.1997) (abusive language, even if directed at religious and ethnic 

background, is insufficient for equal protection claim), overruled on other grounds by Shakur v. 

Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, amendment will only save the complaint if 

plaintiff can truthfully allege specific facts linking the discriminatory statements to some unequal 

treatment above and beyond the slurs themselves. 

IV. Leave to Amend 

The court will provide plaintiff an opportunity to file a first amended complaint to attempt 

to cure the deficiencies identified above. If plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he 

must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his 

constitutional rights. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371. Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms 

how each named defendant is involved. Id. 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. Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); 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) (citations omitted). 

 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make 

his first 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 929 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims 

dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent 

amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a first amended complaint, the 

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a first amended 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 5 of 7
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

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be 

sufficiently alleged. 

V. Summary 

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

 The complaint is dismissed because plaintiff has not explained what any of the defendants 

did and verbal harassment alone does not violate his constitutional rights. Plaintiff will be given a 

chance to amend his complaint so that he can try to state a claim for violation of his rights under 

the Equal Protection Clause. In order to state a claim, plaintiff must have suffered more than just 

verbal harassment. If plaintiff chooses to amend his complaint, he must explain what each 

defendant did to violate his rights. Plaintiff may include exhibits to his complaint, but his claims 

must be explained in the complaint, not in exhibits like grievances. If plaintiff chooses to amend 

his complaint, the amended complaint must include all the claims plaintiff wants to make because 

the court will not look at the claims or information in the original complaint or any other 

documents plaintiff has already filed. If plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within thirty 

days of service of this order, this case will be dismissed. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 7, 9) are granted. 

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

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Sheriff of Sacramento County filed concurrently herewith. 

 3. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed. 

 4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a first 

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 first amended complaint must bear the 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 6 of 7
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 

7

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Failure to 

file a first amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action. 

DATED: January 6, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-00433-AC Document 10 Filed 01/07/16 Page 7 of 7