Taylor v. Lewis et al

Filing 6

ORDER of Dismsisal with Leave to Amend. Amended Complaint due by 1/16/2013.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 12/17/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 D. L. TAYLOR, C-05467, Plaintiff(s), 9 vs. 10 11 G. D. LEWIS, et al., Defendant(s). 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 12-3424 CRB (PR) ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 13 14 Plaintiff, a prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP), has filed a pro se 15 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that 16 prison officials "assaulted" him on more than one occasion by dragging him 17 down to his knees and by kicking his cell door, and that prison officials 18 improperly suspended his religious diet. Plaintiff adds little else, however. DISCUSSION 19 20 21 A. Standard of Review Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which 22 prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 23 governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable 24 claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 25 "is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 26 granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 27 relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed, however. 28 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two 2 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States 3 was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting 4 under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 5 B. Legal Claims It is well-established that allegations that prison officials used force 6 7 maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, rather than in a good-faith effort to 8 maintain or restore discipline, state a cognizable claim under § 1983 for violation 9 of the Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. See 10 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). And it is equally well-established 11 that allegations that prison officials refuse to provide a healthy diet conforming to 12 sincere religious beliefs states a cognizable claim under § 1983 for denial of the 13 First Amendment right to exercise religious practices and beliefs. See Ward v. 14 Walsh, 1 F.3d 873, 877 (9th Cir. 1993); McElyea v. Babbitt, 833 F.2d 196, 198 15 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 Plaintiff's allegations will be dismissed with leave to amend to set forth 17 specific facts showing how defendants used force maliciously and sadistically to 18 cause him harm, or refuse to provide him a healthy diet conforming to his sincere 19 religious beliefs, if possible. Plaintiff must also link each named defendant with 20 his allegations of wrongdoing so as to show how each defendant actually and 21 proximately caused the deprivation of his federal rights of which he complains. 22 See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). A prison official cannot 23 be liable for damages under § 1983 simply because he is responsible for the 24 actions or omissions of another. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th 25 Cir. 1989). 26 / 27 28 2 1 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, 3 as indicated above, within 30 days of this order. The pleading must be simple 4 and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 5 and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to 6 file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result in the 7 dismissal of this action. 8 9 Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the 10 amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 11 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 12 SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: Dec. 17, 2012 CHARLES R. BREYER United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Taylor, D.12-3424.dwlta.wpd 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?