Reyes v. Mitchell et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 04/20/11 granting 12 Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of service of this order. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DAVID REYES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

No. CIV S-11-0219 GEB GGH P

vs.
R. MITCHELL, et al.,
Defendants.

14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42

16
17

U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

18

pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(b)(1).

20
21
22

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). 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

23

U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be assessed an initial filing fee of $1.24. 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff will be obligated for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding

25

month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded

26

by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account
1

1
2

exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

3

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

5

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

6

granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

7

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

8

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

9

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

10

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

15

A complaint must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a

16

cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right to relief above the

17

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007).

18

“The pleading must contain something more...than...a statement of facts that merely creates a

19

suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.” Id., quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal

20

Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). “[A] complaint must contain sufficient

21

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft

22

v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “A

23

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw

24

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

25
26

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 Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.
2

1

738, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1848 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,

2

and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421, 89 S.Ct.

3

1843 (1969).
Plaintiff’s complaint names 22 defendants and raises many claims that apparently

4
5

occurred at Mule Creek State Prison and Salinas Valley State Prison. Plaintiff is informed that

6

Salinas Valley State Prison is located in the Northern District of California so claims that

7

occurred there are not properly brought in this district.
Plaintiff raises claims involving three years he spent in Administrative

8
9

Segregation resulting from a fraudulent drug charge that was later dismissed. Plaintiff alleges

10

violations of his due process rights, he was assaulted by staff while in Ad. Seg., defendants failed

11

to protect him from other inmates, he was denied access to the courts, he was housed in unsafe

12

living conditions, he was retaliated against by defendants and his property was lost or stolen.

13

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants improperly denied his inmate appeals when he grieved these

14

issues.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) provides: “A party asserting a claim to relief as an original

16

claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, may join, either as independent or as

17

alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime as the party has against an

18

opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but Claim A against

19

Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim B against Defendant 2.” George v.

20

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007). “Unrelated claims against different defendants belong

21

in different suits[.]” Id.

22

Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed and he will be granted leave to file an

23

amended complaint within 28 days of service of this order. Plaintiff should not keep the various

24

claims against all the different defendants and must provide additional details regarding the

25

claims he wishes to pursue, identifying the actions of the specific defendants and how they

26

violated his constitutional rights. In addition, as the claims arising from the different institutions
3

1

are not related, plaintiff should only include claims that occurred at Mule Creek State Prison.
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

2
3

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

4
5
6
7

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Furthermore, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Cir. 1982).

22

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

23

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

24

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

25

how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless

26

there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed
4

1

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

2

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore,

3

vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not

4

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

5
6

order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

7

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

8

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.

9

Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original

10

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

11

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

12

alleged.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Plaintiff will be assessed an initial filing fee of $1.24. All fees shall be collected and paid in

17

accordance with this court’s order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections

18

and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.
3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave

19
20

to file an amended complaint within twenty-eight days from the date of service of this Order.

21

Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be

22

dismissed.

23

DATED: April 20, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

24

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26

reye0219.b

5