Hamilton v. Corujo

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 5/3/2017 DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint. Within 30 days, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached Notice of Amendment with the required documents. The Clerk shall send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights action. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID HAMILTON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0817 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

K. CORUJO,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

On April 18, 2017, defendant removed from state court the complaint filed by plaintiff, a
state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Defendant paid the filing fee.
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

3

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

4

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

5

1227.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain

6
7

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the

8

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

9

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

10

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

11

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

12

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific

13

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what

14

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93

15

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted).

16

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

17

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most

18

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other

19

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).
A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states a claim

20
21

and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff an

22

opportunity to cure them. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31. While detailed factual allegations are

23

not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

24

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell

25

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual

26

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft, 556

27

U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 570).

28

////
2

1

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.

2
3
4
5
6

Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions

7

can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are

8

not entitled to the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.
Plaintiff filed his claims on a state court complaint form. In his intentional tort cause of

9
10

action, plaintiff alleges that defendant used excessive force, “lost his cool and ability to reason,”

11

and that plaintiff suffered an injury. (ECF No. 2 at 11.) In the exemplary damages attachment,

12

plaintiff states that “staff correction officer acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of

13

causing [plaintiff] harm,” but plaintiff again alleges no facts demonstrating how defendant acted.

14

(ECF No. 2 at 12.)
The use of excessive force against an inmate violates an inmate’s Eighth Amendment

15
16

right to be free from cruel unusual punishment. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).

17

The use of force is constitutional if employed to keep or restore order in the prison; it is

18

unconstitutional if wielded “maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”

19

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). “That is not to say that every malevolent touch

20

by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of

21

‘cruel and unusual’ punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis

22

uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort ‘repugnant to the conscience

23

of mankind.’” Hudson v. McMillan, 501 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992). The Supreme Court has identified

24

five factors to consider in determining whether an official’s use of force was sadistic and

25

malicious for the purpose of causing harm: (1) extent of the injury; (2) need to use the force; (3)

26

relationship between the need to use the force and the amount used; (4) the threat “reasonably

27

perceived” by the official; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of the force. Id. at 7.

28

////
3

1

Here, plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations as to when this incident occurred,

2

or how the use of force was employed. Plaintiff may be able to allege facts demonstrating that

3

defendant used excessive force. But plaintiff must tell the court what happened that he contends

4

shows that defendant used excessive force. In other words, plaintiff must allege facts surrounding

5

the use of force in order for the court to determine whether he states a cognizable civil rights

6

claim by using the Hudson elements to evaluate whether the facts alleged meet the required

7

standards.

8

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

9

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The

10

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required

11

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

12

complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones

13

v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least

14

some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim.

15

Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the

16

complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v.
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

alleged.

5

Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint on the form provided by the Clerk of Court. In

6

addition, plaintiff is not required to append exhibits. Plaintiff’s previously-submitted exhibits

7

remain a part of the court record and may be referred to by any party. (ECF No. 2 at 13-19.)

8

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

9

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

10
11

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached
Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

12

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17
18
19

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the
dismissal of this action.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for filing a civil rights

20

complaint by a prisoner.

21

Dated: May 3, 2017

22
23
/hami0817.14n

24
25
26
27
28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID HAMILTON,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0415 JAM KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

K. CORUJO,

15

Defendant.

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