Taylor v. Fowell et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/7/2013 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the FRCP and the Local Rules of Practice. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BERNARD TAYLOR,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-2901 JAM CKD PS

vs.
FOWELL, DEPUTY #2358, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this

18

court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

19

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

20

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

21

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

22

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

23

the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

24

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1915(e)(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.

6

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

7

more than “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements

8

of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other

9

words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

10

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Furthermore, a

11

claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

12

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

13

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129

14

S. Ct. at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be

15

granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200

16

(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.

17

Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

/////
2

1

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

2

file an amended complaint.

3

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must set forth the

4

jurisdictional grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil

5

Procedure 8(a). Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted

6

in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980).

7

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

8

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.

9
10
11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

Cir. 1982).

26

/////
3

1

It appears plaintiff may be attempting to state a claim under the Eighth

2

Amendment. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment imposes on

3

prison officials, among other things, a duty to “take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety

4

of the inmates.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1991) (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468

5

U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984)). To state a claim for failure to adequately protect an inmate under the

6

Eighth Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn

7

that a prison official exposed plaintiff to a “substantial risk of serious harm,” while displaying

8

“deliberate indifference” to that risk. Id. at 834.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 2) is granted;

18

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed;

19

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

20

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

21

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

22

this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////
4

1

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

2

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

3

Dated: January 7, 2013

4

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8

4
taylor2901.ifp-lta

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