Condee v. Castillo et al

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/12/2015. First Amended Complaint due within thirty (30) days. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form). (Jessen, A)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No. 1:14 cv 01072 AWI GSA PC

CHRISTOPHER CONDEE,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND
GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

vs.

C/O CASTILLO, et al.,
Defendants

11

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE
IN THIRTY DAYS

12
13
14
15

16
17
18

I.

Screening Requirement
Plaintiff is 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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been

24

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or

25

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

26

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

27
28

1

1
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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

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

13

Plaintiff, an inmate currently in custody at the Los Angeles County Jail, brings this civil

14

rights action against correction officials employed by the California Department of Corrections

15

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at CSP Corcoran. Plaintiff names as Defendants the following

16

individuals: Correctional Officer (C/O) Castillo; C/O Aronea and Sergeant Garcia. Plaintiff‟s

17

statement of claim, in its entirety, follows:

18

On several occasions I was subjected to physical harm for failing
to provide confidential information to correction staff (see Exhibit
A). I was denied food, subjected to assault, pepper spray, I was
threatened by C/O Castillo and Sergeant Garcia knew and did
nothing to stop the abuse. I am an inmate/patient at EOP level of
care.

19
20
21
22

(Comp. ¶ IV.)

23

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff‟s allegations to be vague. Plaintiff sets forth generalized

24

allegations regarding the conditions of his confinement, and names 3 individual defendants. To

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

2

1
2

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

3

that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.‟” Hydrick v. Hunter, 500 F.3d 978, 988

4

(9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). “[T]he „requisite

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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 safety, resulting in injury
to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by alleging that he was subjected to
a risk of harm or that he suffered injury. Plaintiff must allege facts indicating that each

12

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

13

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

14

will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to do so here.

21

III.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

3

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5
6
7

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,

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

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.

13

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

14

1.

15

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

16

2.

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

17

3.

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

18
19

an amended complaint;
4.

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

20

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

21

complaint; and

22
23

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.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated:

/s/ Gary S. Austin
4

February 12, 2015

1
2

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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