Townsend v. Sacramento County Main Jail

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/12/12 ORDERING that 9 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED; the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend within 28 days.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

REBIO RONNIE TOWNSEND,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:12-cv-2138 GGH P

vs.

13

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MAIN JAIL,

14

Defendant.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, who is confined in a state hospital and is proceeding pro se, has filed a

17

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by

18

Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This case is before the undersigned pursuant

19

to plaintiff’s consent. Doc. 3.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

26

\\\\\
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A

16

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

17

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

18

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the

19

allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S.

20

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

21

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

22

1843 (1969).

23

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to name any defendants nor does it identify any specific

24

actionable claims. It is more of a treatise of plaintiff’s complaints about Sacramento County

25

\\\\\

26

\\\\\
2

1

Main Jail, where it appears he was temporarily housed at some point, Atascadero State Hospital1

2

where he is currently housed, and generally the entire political system in California, the criminal

3

justice system including police officers, public defenders, assistant district attorneys, judges and

4

correctional officers at state facilities. With respect to conditions of confinement, the only claims

5

that could potentially be cognizable in the complaint, plaintiff describes how the guards are mean

6

spirited, the food is bad, the showers and cells are dirty and the other prisoners can be difficult.

7

While it is possible for claims such as these to state an Eighth Amendment violation, plaintiff

8

would need to describe a specific incident and the defendants responsible for the conduct.

9

Moreover, any conduct would need to have affected plaintiff, not another prisoner. Any

10

allegations involving Atascadero State Hospital are unrelated to those involving the Sacramento

11

County Jail, and must be brought in a separate action in the Northern District of California,

12

where that facility is located.2

13

The complaint will be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within

14

28 days of service of this order. No further amendments will be allowed. Failure to file an

15

amended complaint will result in this action being dismissed.

16

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

17

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.

18
19
20

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

21
22
23

1

A great deal of the complaint involves Atascadero State Hospital which the court will
not address, as those claims must be brought in the Northern District of California.
2

24
25
26

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[u]nrelated claims against
different defendants belong in different suits”). Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a) provides: “A party asserting
a claim, counter-claim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative
claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.” “Thus multiple claims against a
single party are fine, but Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated Claim
B against Defendant 2.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).
3

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

7

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Cir. 1982).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

24

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

25

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

26

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

alleged.

6

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

7

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted;

8

2. The complaint is dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file

9

an amended complaint, within twenty-eight days from the date of service of this order. No

10

further amendments will be allowed. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in this

11

action being dismissed.

12

DATED: October 12, 2012

13
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15

GGH: AB
town2138.b

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5