Papenhausen v. Clark et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 2/16/12 ORDERING that 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

SCOTT PAPENHOUSEN,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-0018 KJM JFM (PC)

vs.
STEVE CLARK, et al.,
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 paid the appropriate filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this

18

court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

19

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on January 4, 2012. On January 17, 2012

20

plaintiff filed a document in which he states that he neglected to include the last page in that

21

complaint. The complaint filed January 4, 2012 does, however, include a last page. The

22

document filed by plaintiff on January 17, 2012 will therefore be disregarded.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
1

1

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

2

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

11

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

12

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

13

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

14

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

15

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

16

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

17

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

18

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

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 allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

14

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.

15

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file

16

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 allege in specific terms

20

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

21

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

22

deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

23

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

24

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of

25

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

26

/////
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 complaint is dismissed.

10

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an

11

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

12

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

13

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file

14

an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in

15

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

16

DATED: February 16, 2012.

17
18
19
20
21

12
pape0018.14

22
23
24
25
26
4