Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120126_0001283.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 16:52:41
Document Index: 579490879

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

| Ira Don Parthemore v. William Knipp
IRA DON PARTHEMORE, PLAINTIFF,v.WILLIAM KNIPP, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.*fn1 He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 2.
The court has reviewed plaintiff's complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds that it fails to state a cognizable claim for relief. Thus, to proceed plaintiff must file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff names Warden Martel, Warden Knipp and Matthew Cate as defendants. He alleges Martel instituted a practice at Mule Creek State Prison of using "Martin restraints" during medical transports, and that Knipp has continued with that practice. Plaintiff describes the restraints as "instruments of torture" that have caused him to suffer unnecessary pain and injuries on multiple occasions, and alleges that use of the restraints violates his right under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff also alleges that unnamed individuals acted with deliberate indifference when they ignored his complaints of discomfort and pain caused by the restraints, and when they also ignored his requests for medical attention for injuries caused by the restraints. The complaint does not include any allegations against defendant Cate. Plaintiff seeks damages and a permanent statewide injunction prohibiting the use of Martin restraints unless an inmate's behavior dictates their use.
To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: (1) the violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right; and (2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the alleged rights deprivation, as there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. "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). Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior; the causal link between a supervisor and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Here, plaintiff does not allege how any of the named defendants were personally involved in violating his rights. The complaint does not link any named defendant to any affirmative act resulting in a constitutional deprivation suffered by plaintiff. Moreover, the complaint includes no allegations against defendant Cate, and does not name as a defendant any of the prison officials who allegedly ignored plaintiff's complaints regarding use of the Martin restraints.
For official capacity suits seeking injunctive relief based on an unconstitutional state practice, policy, or procedure, it is not necessary to allege the personal involvement of a state official if the practice, policy, or procedure relates in some way to the job duties of the named defendant. Ryles v. Felker, 2008 WL 1901231, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2008). "All that is required is that the complaint name an official who could appropriately respond to a court order on injunctive relief should one ever be issued." Id. Here, plaintiff has alleged that defendants Martel and Knipp instituted an unconstitutional practice of using the Martin restraints. However, plaintiff improperly seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all California inmates. Plaintiff cannot represent others and may only seek relief only on his own behalf.
Finally, claims for damages against the state, its agencies or its officers for actions performed in their official capacities are barred under the Eleventh Amendment, unless the state waives its immunity. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985); see also Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) (neither a state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under § 1983). Section 1983 does not abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See Quern ...