(PS) Babbitt v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept.. et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/12/2025 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP; DISMISSING the complaint with leave to amend; and GRANTING plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice. (Deputy Clerk RRB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM JOSEPH BABBITT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

2: 24-cv-02396-CKD PS

ORDER

v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter

18
19

was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s

20

complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are before the court. (ECF No. 1, 2.)

21

I.

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

22

A plaintiff seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis must submit an affidavit demonstrating

23

inability to pay the filing fee, which must include a statement of all the plaintiff’s assets and

24

demonstrate the affiant’s poverty “with some particularity, definiteness, and certainty.” United

25

States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). “An affidavit in support of an IFP

26

application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford

27

the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation

28

omitted). While § 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins
1

1

v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the applicant must nonetheless

2

show that he is “unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). If the

3

court determines “the allegation of poverty is untrue,” the court “shall dismiss the case.” 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

5
6
7

The court has conducted the required review and will grant plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.
II.

Screening Requirement

8

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen every in forma pauperis

9

proceeding, and must order dismissal of the case if it is “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a

10

claim on which relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

11

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27

12

(2000). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.

13

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it is

14

based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly

15

baseless. Id. at 327.

16

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

17

of the claim that shows the pleader is entitled to relief. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

18

544, 555 (2007). In order to state a cognizable claim, a complaint must contain more than “naked

19

assertions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

20

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. The facts alleged

21

must “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’”

22

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In reviewing a

23

complaint under this standard, the court accepts as true the allegations of the complaint and

24

construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id.; Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416

25

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

26

III.

Allegations in the Complaint

27

Plaintiff alleges that conditions of confinement at the Sacramento County Jail violated his

28

Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when he was placed in a
2

1

“suicide cell” that was “covered in feces” in October of 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiff also

2

alleges that between January 13, 2024, and February 14, 2024, he was “deprived of hot food” and

3

his “food was stolen.” (Id.) Plaintiff names the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department and

4

“Vera Deputy Sheriff” as defendants. Plaintiff does not say whether he was a pretrial detainee or

5

a sentenced prisoner at the time of the alleged incidents. 1
IV.

6

Discussion

7

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. First,

8

plaintiff fails to state whether he was a pretrial detainee or a sentenced prisoner at the time of the

9

allegations, necessary information for a complete legal analysis. 2 Second, although he names the

10

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department as a defendant, plaintiff does not allege any county

11

policy, custom, or practice that caused his unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Third,

12

although plaintiff names “Vera Deputy Sheriff” as a defendant, he does not include any details

13

about if, and how, she was involved in either incident. Finally, plaintiff does not provide

14

information regarding who was responsible for the condition of his food, nor who allegedly stole

15

his food.

16

V.

17

The court provides the following to assist plaintiff in understanding the deficiencies of his

18

Relevant Legal Authority

complaint.

19

a. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

20

Municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their

21

employees. Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 694 (1978). “Instead, it is

22

when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those

23

whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the

24

government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. Municipalities are considered

25

“persons” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and therefore may be liable for causing a constitutional

26

1

27
28

A pretrial detainee’s rights arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
whereas a convicted prisoner’s rights arise under the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual
Punishments Clause. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979)
3

1

deprivation. Monell, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178,

2

1185 (9th Cir.2006). To properly plead a Monell claim based on an unconstitutional custom,

3

practice, or policy, plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he possessed a constitutional right of which

4

he was deprived; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) such policy amounts to deliberate

5

indifference to plaintiff's constitutional right; and (4) the policy is the moving force behind the

6

constitutional violation. See Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438

7

(9th Cir. 1997). The municipal policy at issue must be the result of a “‘longstanding practice or

8

custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity.’” Price

9

v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 966 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ulrich v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 308

10

F.3d 968, 984-85 (9th Cir. 2002)).

11

b. Vera Deputy Sheriff

12

There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

13

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

14

362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights

15

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

16
17

c. Conditions in the Cell
Conditions of confinement claims raised by pretrial detainees are analyzed under the

18

Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, rather than under the Eighth Amendment. Bell v.

19

Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 n. 16 (1979); Frost v. Agnos, 152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998).

20

Nevertheless, comparable standards apply, with Fourteenth Amendment analysis borrowing from

21

Eighth Amendment standards. Frost, 152 F.3d at 1128. “Jail officials have a duty to ensure that

22

detainees are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal

23

safety.” Shorter v. Baca, 895 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2018).

24

d. Food

25

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment imposes a

26

duty on prison officials to “provide humane conditions of confinement.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511

27

U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “[P]rison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food,

28

clothing, shelter, and medical care.” Id. To show a violation of the Eighth Amendment premised
4

1

upon a denial of food, a prisoner must show (1) an act or omission of a prison official resulted in

2

the denial of “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,” id. at 834 (internal quotation

3

omitted), and (2) the denial was the result of at least deliberate indifference to a substantial risk

4

that the deprivation would occur. Id. at 847. Generally speaking, the Eighth Amendment requires

5

that inmates receive “food that is adequate to maintain health.” LeMaire v. Mass, 12 F.3d 1444,

6

1456 (9th Cir. 1993). “[P]rison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food,

7

clothing, shelter, and medical care.” Id.

8

VI.

Leave to Amend

9

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

10

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

11

complaint must be dismissed, but plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint. See

12

Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Unless it is absolutely clear that no

13

amendment can cure the defect… a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s

14

deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.”).

15

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

16

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g.,

17

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how

18

each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no

19

liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a

20

defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633

21

F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague, and conclusory allegations of official

22

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268

23

(9th Cir. 1982).

24

An amended complaint should be titled “First Amended Complaint” and bear the case

25

number of this order. In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior

26

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that

27

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This

28

requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original
5

1

complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an

2

‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”

3

(internal citation omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

4

longer serves any function in the case.

5
6
7

VII.

Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not
intended as legal advice.

8

Your complaint is being dismissed because it fails to state a claim regarding confinement

9

in an unsanitary cell or the food you received. However, you are being given the chance to fix the

10

problems identified in this order by filing an amended complaint. If you wish to file an amended

11

complaint you must clearly identify the people involved, and the specific actions or inactions they

12

undertook to support your allegations.

13

VIII. Conclusion

14

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

15

1. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.

16

2. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

17

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended

18

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

19

and the Local Rules of Practice; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance

20

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

21

Dated: March 12, 2025
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27

CKDBabbitt2396

28
6