Lopez v. Solano State Prison

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 08/15/17 granting 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the court's C DC 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 with an 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

EUTIMIO LOPEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2: 17-cv-1554 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SOLANO STATE PRISON,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This

19

proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20
21
22

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. 28 U.S.C.

23

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

§ 1915(b)(2).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

1227.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the
2

1

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

2

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

3

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

4

The only named defendant is Solano State Prison. Plaintiff alleges that during

5

transportation, he was shackled so tightly that he lost consciousness. Plaintiff also alleges that

6

because there were no restraints, he fell out of his wheelchair, injuring his lower back and head.

7

Plaintiff also alleges that following the transfer, prison officials held and lost his property.

8

Plaintiff also alleges that while at Solano State Prison, a hidden camera was placed in his cell

9

without his permission.

10

The Eleventh Amendment “‘erects a general bar against federal lawsuits brought against

11

the state.’” Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1065–66 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Porter v.

12

Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state

13

agencies as well as those where the state itself is named as a defendant. Aholelei v. Dept. of

14

Public Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Solano State Prison is a part of the

15

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a state agency, it also enjoys Eleventh

16

Amendment immunity from suit. Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822, 823 (9th

17

Cir. 1969) (holding that state prison was a state agency entitled to sovereign immunity). Plaintiff

18

may not sustain an action against defendant Solano State Prison for the alleged violations,

19

regardless of the relief sought. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100

20

(1984). Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. If plaintiff files an

21

amended complaint, plaintiff shall name as defendants those individuals personally responsible

22

for the alleged deprivations.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Id.; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743
3

1

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

2

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

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 220 requires that an amended

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

pleading no 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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently

17

herewith.

18

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

19

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

20

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

21

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

22

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

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
4

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

Complaint.”

5

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

6

dismissal of this action.

7

Dated: August 15, 2017

8
9
10
11
Lop1554.14

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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

EUTIMIO LOPEZ,

12
13
14

No. 2: 17-cv-1554 KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

SOLANO STATE PRISON,

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