(PC) Davis vs Unknown

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/13/2023 GRANTING plaintiff's 9 request to proceed ifp and DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint. Within 30 days, plaintiff shall complete and return the attached Notice of Amendment with the required documents. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

No. 2:23-cv-2358 KJN P

DANIEL DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

UNKNOWN,

15

Defendants.

16
17

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

18

§ 1983, and 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

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

21

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

22

Screening Standard

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 when 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. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully

28

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

1

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.

2

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

3

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

4

1227.

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

Discussion

20

Plaintiff alleges that he is a civil detainee pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions

21

(“W & I”) Code § 6602. W & I Code § 6602 refers to persons civilly committed as sexually

22

violent predators (“SVP”). Plaintiff is housed at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-

23

Sac”). Plaintiff alleges that he is “illegally housed and detained” in prison around criminals.

24

Plaintiff alleges that it is against the law to house civil detainees with criminals. Plaintiff alleges

25

that he should be housed at Coalinga State Hospital for treatment. Plaintiff alleges that there is no

26

treatment for W & I Code § 6602 at CSP-Sac.

27
28

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because it does not name any
defendant(s). The undersigned cannot determine whether plaintiff states potentially colorable
2

1

claims for relief unless plaintiff identifies the defendant(s). Accordingly, in the amended

2

complaint, plaintiff shall name as defendants those persons responsible for the alleged

3

deprivations.

4
5
6
7
8

Plaintiff is informed that the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides
as follows:
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.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

participation is insufficient).
3

1

The undersigned also finds that to the extent plaintiff alleges that it is per se

2

unconstitutional to house SVPs in prisons, there is no outright prohibition on housing SVPs in

3

prisons. Snyder v. Fresno County, 2015 WL 3541077, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 4, 2015) (citing

4

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 932 (2004)).

5

Plaintiff appears to allege that there is no treatment for SVPs at CSP-Sac. “[T]he

6

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires states to provide civilly-committed persons

7

with access to mental health treatment that gives them a realistic opportunity to be cured and

8

released.” Sharp v. Weston, 233 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ohlinger v. Watson, 652

9

F.2d 775, 778 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, the decisions of qualified professionals regarding

10

treatment are presumed valid and a professional will only be liable when their decision “is such a

11

substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to

12

demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.”

13

Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323 (1982).

14

If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall clarify his claim that there is no treatment

15

for SVPs at CSP-Sac. Plaintiff shall describe the mental health treatment he believes he should

16

receive based on his SVP commitment. Plaintiff shall address why any mental health treatment

17

he receives at CSP-Sac does not adequately treat his mental health problems related to his SVP

18

commitment. As discussed above, plaintiff shall also name as defendants those persons allegedly

19

responsible for his failure to receive mental health treatment related to his SVP commitment at

20

CSP-Sac.

21

Finally, as relief, plaintiff seeks money damages. Plaintiff also seeks dismissal of “my

22

petition” so that he can do treatment on the outside or a transfer to Coalinga State Hospital.

23

Plaintiff also states, “I clearly do not have a mental condition.”

24

Plaintiff is informed that in this civil rights action, the court cannot order plaintiff’s

25

release from custody. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (if a plaintiff challenges

26

“the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination

27

that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole

28

federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”). If plaintiff intends to challenge the validity of his
4

1

SVP commitment, he must proceed by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

2

U.S.C. § 2254. Mack v. Brown, 2016 WL 4208466, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2016).

3

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make

4

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

5

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a

6

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of

7

San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the

8

original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation omitted)). Once

9

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the

10

case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the

11

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

12

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

13

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted.

14

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

15

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

16

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

17

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

18

b. An original of the Amended Complaint.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

dismissal of this action.

24

Dated: November 13, 2023

25
26
27
28

Dav2358.14

5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

18

Defendants.
Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order
filed______________.

19
20
21
22

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

UKNOWN,

16
17

No. 2: 23-cv-2358 KJN P

DANIEL DAVIS,

DATED:

_____________

Amended Complaint

________________________________
Plaintiff

23
24
25
26
27
28
6