Mills v. Fox et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/24/2018 ORDERING that plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH WAYNE MILLS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-CV-0152-JAM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

ROBERT W. FOX, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

20

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

21

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

22

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

23

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

24

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

25

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This

26

means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d

27

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the

28

complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
1

1

rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege

2

with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the

3

claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

4

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

5

and conclusory.

6
I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS

7
8

Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Robert W. Fox, the Warden of the

9

California Medical Facility; and (2) A. Goodson, a correctional counselor at the California

10

Medical Facility. See Doc. 1, p. 2 (plaintiff’s complaint). Plaintiff states that he has asked

11

defendant Goodson if he could access his central file in order to prepare a habeas corpus petition

12

to be filed in state court raising issues relating to calculation of plaintiff’s release date. See id. at

13

3. According to plaintiff, defendant did not respond to his requests or inmate appeals regarding

14

access to his central file, thereby thwarting his ability to file a habeas petition. See id. Next,

15

plaintiff claims he was “made to sleep on a block of concrete with a thin mattress.” Id. at 4.

16

Plaintiff also states that his attempts to file inmate grievances regarding the conditions of his

17

confinement have been thwarted, though he does not say by whom. See id.

18
19

II. DISCUSSION
The court finds plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient for service as to his claim that

20
21

defendant Goodson interfered with plaintiff’s access to the courts by refusing to address

22

plaintiff’s requests to see his central file. The complaint does not, however, state a cognizable

23

claim to the extent plaintiff alleges unconstitutional conditions of confinement or that he was

24

prevented from pursuing claims related to the conditions of his confinement. The complaint also

25

fails to state a claim as against defendant Fox, the prison warden.

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

A.

2

Claims Related to Conditions of Confinement
Plaintiff appears to assert two claims related to the conditions of confinement.

3

First, plaintiff suggests that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he was forced to

4

sleep on a concrete block with only a thin mattress. Second, plaintiff asserts that his ability to

5

pursue redress concerning the conditions of confinement has been thwarted by prison officials’

6

refusal to process inmate appeals. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged any connection between

7

these claims and either named defendant or any other individual.

8

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual

9

connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See

10

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A

11

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of

12

§ 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform

13

an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”

14

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations

15

concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See

16

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth

17

specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional

18

deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).

19
20
21

Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend.
B.

Claims Against Defendant Fox
The complaint contains no specific allegations as to defendant Fox, other than the

22

allegation that he is the prison warden. Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under

23

§ 1983 for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

24

1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only

25

liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed

26

the violations. See id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant

27

can be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct

28

because government officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his
3

1

or her own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676

2

(2009). Supervisory personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a

3

repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may,

4

however, be liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See

5

Redman v. Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).

6

When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such

7

defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.

8

Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.

9

1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in

10

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

11

Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the

12

official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.

13
14

In this case, plaintiff has not outlined any allegations as to defendant Fox. Plaintiff
will be provided an opportunity to amend.

15
16
17

III. CONCLUSION
Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

18

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

19

1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an

20

amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

21

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the

22

prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An

23

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

28

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
4

1
2

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Because the complaint appears to otherwise state a cognizable claim, if no

3

amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and

4

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such

5

further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.

6
7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file a first amended
complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

8
9
10

Dated: October 24, 2018
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5