Gutierrez v. Barnes, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/03/15 granting 10 Motion to Proceed IFP and denying 5 Motion to Stay. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collecte d in accordance with the court's CDC order filed concurrently herewith. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Amendment and submit it along with and original and 1 copy of the amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL GUTIERREZ,

12
13
14

No. 2: 15-cv-0547 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

R. BARNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636(b)(1).

21
22
23

Plaintiff 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.

24

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing

25

fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will

26

direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account

27

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

28

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

1

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time

2

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1915(b)(2).

4

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

5

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

6

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

7

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

8

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

9

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

10

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th

11

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

16

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably

17

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at

18

1227.

19

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

20

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, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

23

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a

24

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations

25

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555.

26

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

27

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

28

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal
2

1

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as

2

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the

3

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

4

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

5

Named as defendants are Warden Barnes and Medical Staff at High Desert State Prison

6

(“HDSP”). (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that he is being denied adequate pain medication.

7

(Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that he is in severe pain without this medication. (Id.) Plaintiff seeks

8

injunctive and monetary relief. (Id.)

9

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

10

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.

11
12
13

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

14

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

15

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983

16

liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no

17

affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy

18

demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another

19

to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an

20

affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is

21

legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy,

22

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979)

27

(no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d

28

438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert.
3

1

denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of

2

official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673

3

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal

4

participation is insufficient).
Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations linking defendant Barnes to the alleged

5
6

deprivation. Because defendant Barnes is not linked to plaintiff’s claims, defendant Barnes is

7

dismissed.
Plaintiff’s complaint names no other defendants. Although plaintiff lists “medical staff at

8
9

HDSP” as a defendant, the HDSP medical staff does not qualify as a defendant. Plaintiff must

10

name as defendants those individuals responsible for his alleged failure to receive adequate pain

11

medication.

12

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

13

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rizzo v.

14

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each

15

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

16

some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation.

17

Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

18

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

19

rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

20

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

21

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

22

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

alleged.

28

////
4

1

On February 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action for 60 days while he

2

exhausts administrative remedies. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff alleges that prison officials have

3

delayed responding to his administrative grievance. Attached to plaintiff’s motion is a

4

memorandum dated January 30, 2015 notifying plaintiff of a delay in the processing of his appeal

5

due to “unavailability of the appellant, staff or inmate witnesses.” (Id. at 3.) The response states

6

that a response to plaintiff’s appeal is expected by March 13, 2015. (Id.) By the time plaintiff

7

prepares his amended complaint, if he chooses to file one, 60 days will have passed from

8

February 18, 2015. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to stay is denied.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

15

herewith.

16

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

17

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

18

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

19

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

this action.

26

////

27

////

28

////
5

1
2

5. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (ECF No. 5) is denied.
Dated: April 3, 2015

3
4
5
Gut457.14
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MIGUEL GUTIERREZ,

12
13
14

No. 2: 15-cv-0547 MCE KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

R. BARNES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order
filed______________.
_____________

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Amended Complaint

DATED:
________________________________
Plaintiff