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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2655 MCE GGH P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

On January 12, 2005, the court dismissed the original complaint with leave to

amend. On February 1, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 15, 2005,

plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which is substantially similar to the February 1, 2005,

amended complaint. Accordingly, the court will consider the second amended complaint. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15.

Named as defendants are the following employees of the Solano County Jail: 

Smith, Childress, Jorgensen, Davis, Hambright, Featherson, Mercado, Nixon, Mashburn and

Atkins. The second amended complaint contains no specific allegations against defendants 

Jorgensen, Davis, Featherson, Mashburn and Atkins.

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

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

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. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named

defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed

constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S.

941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel

in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

Because plaintiff has failed to link defendants Jorgensen, Davis, Featherson,

Mashburn and Atkins to any of the alleged deprivations, the court will separately recommend

that the claims against these defendants be dismissed.

The only allegation against defendant Smith is that he denied plaintiff’s

administrative appeal. Prisoners do not have a separate constitutional right to a specific

grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the

court will separately recommend that the claim against defendant Smith be dismissed. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

3

The second amended complaint states a cognizable claim for relief against

defendants Childress, Hambright, Mercado and Nixon pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme

Court has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent

prisoners in § 1983 cases. Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In

certain exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991);

Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court

does not find the required exceptional circumstances. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of

counsel will therefore be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 1, 2005, motion for appointment of counsel is denied;

2. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: Childress, Hambright,

Mercado, Nixon. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff 3 USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the second amended complaint filed March 15, 2005.

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3

above; and 

d. Five copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed March 15,

2005. 

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

4

5. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the United States 

Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. 

DATED: 6/14/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

chat2655.1

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2655 MCE GGH P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 1 completed summons form

 4 completed USM-285 forms

 5 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02655-MCE -GGH Document 12 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 5