Blackshire v. Sacramento County Sheriff

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/8/15 ORDERING that: Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed; and Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third amended complai nt that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Third Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK BLACKSHIRE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:15-cv-1123 MCE CKD PS

ORDER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a

17
18

second amended complaint.
The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the

19
20

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

21

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

22

§ 1915(e)(2).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

490 U.S. at 327.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

at 1949. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,

10

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007),

11

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

12

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

13

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

14

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

15

claim for relief. Although the three line document filed by plaintiff is short, it does not set forth a

16

plain statement of plaintiff’s claim as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal

17

Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of

18

the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th

19

Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which

20

defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply

21

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the second amended complaint must be

22

dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file a third amended complaint.

23

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

24

grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).

25

Further, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conduct complained of has resulted in a deprivation

26

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

27
28

It appears that plaintiff may be trying to state a claim for violation of his civil rights.
Plaintiff is advised that the Civil Rights Act provides as follows:
2

1

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.

2
3
4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague

16

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights

17

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff named as a defendant the Sacramento County Sheriff in the original complaint.

18
19

The second amended complaint does not even allege a name of a defendant and does not state

20

whether any defendant is sued in their individual or official capacity. In the present state of

21

pleadings, the court cannot discern whether plaintiff is attempting to state a claim against the

22

County of Sacramento or the Sheriff of Sacramento County in his individual or official capacity.

23

To state a claim against the County, plaintiff must set forth facts alleging that local government

24

officials have intentionally violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the violation was part of

25

policy or custom and was not an isolated incident, and that there is a link between the specific

26

policy or custom to the plaintiff’s injury. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-92. Moreover, plaintiff

27

fails to set forth any facts showing that he was entitled to be released on a certain date and the

28

/////
3

1

circumstances under which he was allegedly belatedly released. See generally Brass v. County of

2

Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

alleged.

11

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

12

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed; and

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an

17

original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a third amended complaint

18

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

19

Dated: July 8, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23

4 blackshire1123.lta3

24
25
26
27
28
4