Strong v. Solano County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 7/28/11 ORDERING that 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with 30 days to file an amended complaint.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOVAN STRONG,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-1916 JFM (PC)

vs.
SOLANO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
(MEDICAL STAFF),

15

Defendants.

ORDER
/

16
Plaintiff is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant
17
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 636(b)(1).
20
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28
21
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
22
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). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee
24
in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will
25
direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account
26
1

1

and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated for monthly

2

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust

3

account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court

4

each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28

5

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

6

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

20

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

21

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic

22

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355

23

U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must

24

contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain

25

factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic,

26

id. However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the
2

1

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson

2

v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (quoting Bell, 127 S.Ct. at 1964, in turn

3

quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this

4

standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, id.,

5

and construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

6

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

7

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory

8

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

9

relief. The court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement

10

as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading

11

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

12

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

13

must name specific defendants and must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt

14

acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed

15

to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed.

16

The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

defendants and must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can

21

be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection

22

between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

23

(1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

24

743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in

25

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

26

1982).
3

1

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

2

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

3

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a

4

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375

5

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

6

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the

13

Sheriff of Solano County filed concurrently herewith.

14

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

15

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

16

attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

17

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

18

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

19

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the

20

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must

21

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; failure to

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
4

1

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of this

2

action.

3

DATED: July 28, 2011.

4
5
6
7
8

12
stro1916.14

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOVAN STRONG,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:11-cv-1916 JFM (PC)

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT (MEDICAL STAFF)

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

vs.

14
15

Defendants.
____________________________________/

16
17

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s
order filed

18
19

:
______________

Amended Complaint

DATED:

20
21
22
Plaintiff
23
24
25
26
6