Clation v. Pendleton et al

Filing 12

ORDER Dismissing Complaint, With Leave to File Amended Complaint Within Thirty Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/19/13. Thirty-Day Deadline (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TYRONE CLATION,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01974 GSA PC
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, WITH
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

v.
KIM HOLLAND, et al.,

13

(ECF No. 1)

Defendants.
/

14
15
16

Screening Order
I.

Screening Requirement

17

Plaintiff is a Kern County Jail inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

20

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

21

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

22

Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

23

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

24

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

25

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

26

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

27

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

28

///
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

5

“Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the

6

grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. However, “the liberal pleading

7

standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330

8

n.9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements

9

of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257

10

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

11

II.

Plaintiff’s Claims

12

The complaint in this action consists of two pages of a form complaint, along with

13

approximately 50 pages of exhibits, which appear to be copies of CDCR documents and

14

correspondence between Plaintiff and the California Attorney General’s Office regarding complaints

15

about peace officer misconduct. The form complaint submitted by Plaintiff fails to allege any facts,

16

and the Court can not discern any legal claims.

17

To state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under

18

color of state law and (2) the defendant deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or federal

19

law. Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006). “A person deprives

20

another of a constitutional right, where that person ‘does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

21

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which [that person] is legally required to do that causes

22

the deprivation of which complaint is made.’” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2007)

23

(quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he ‘requisite causal connection

24

can be established not only by some kind of direct, personal participation in the deprivation, but also

25

by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know

26

would cause others to inflict the constitutional injury.’” Id. (quoting Johnson at 743-44).

27

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

28

hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

5

III.

Conclusion and Order

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is cautioned that he may not

10

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George,

11

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

12

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

13

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights,

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

19

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

20

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

21

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

22

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

23

1474.

24

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

25

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim;

26

2.

The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

27

3.

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

28

amended complaint;
3

1

4.

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

2

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

3

complaint; and

4

5.

5

If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, with
prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
6i0kij

April 19, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4