Brown v. Brown et al

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Amended Complaint due by 8/8/2016.. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 7/12/16. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

LONNIE CHARLES BROWN,

7

Case No. 16-cv-02518-JCS (PR)

Plaintiff,
8

v.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

9

EDMUND JERRY BROWN, et al.,

10

Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

INTRODUCTION

13

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this federal civil

14
15

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint lacks sufficient factual detail and it is

16

unclear who the proper defendants are. Accordingly, after conducting a review under

17

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court DISMISSES the complaint with leave to file an amended

18

complaint on or before August 15, 2016.1
DISCUSSION

19
20

A.

Standard of Review

21

In its initial review of this pro se complaint, this Court must dismiss any claim that

22

is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks

23

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C.

24

§ 1915(e). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

25

Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Docket No. 3.) The magistrate
judge, then, has jurisdiction to issue this order, even though defendants have not been
served or consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530,
532 (5th Cir. 1995).

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to „state a

1
2

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.‟” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

3

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

4

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

5

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

6

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal

7

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

8

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55

9

(9th Cir. 1994).
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

12

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the

13

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

14

B.

15

Legal Claims
Plaintiff‟s allegations are nearly incomprehensible. It appears that plaintiff alleges

16

his jailors are violating his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Exactly

17

how or who is doing this is quite unclear. Plaintiff names supervisory defendants, e.g., the

18

Governor of California, but alleges no specific facts showing that they are liable. In his

19

amended complaint, plaintiff must allege specific facts, such as names, dates, places, a

20

description of the actions taken or words spoken, what religious activity was interfered

21

with, etc.

22

The Court instructs plaintiff to carefully consider the following. It is very difficult

23

to plead claims against persons based on their role as supervisors, especially where, as

24

here, there are no facts showing that any of these persons had a personal involvement in

25

any of the allegedly unconstitutional acts. There is no respondeat superior liability under

26

§ 1983, see Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), which means that a person

27

is not automatically held responsible simply because he or she is a supervisor of an

28

employee who commits a wrong. It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a
2

1

supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor

2

“participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to

3

prevent them.” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to

4

qualified immunity where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory”

5

because such allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors‟ personal

6

involvement in their subordinates‟ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 129 U.S. at 675-82. There

7

is nothing in the complaint that indicates personal knowledge or involvement.

8
9

It is recommended that plaintiff focus his allegations on the persons he had direct
contact with, such as prison guards. He is encouraged to carefully consider the following
when amending his complaint. “A person deprives another „of a constitutional right,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another‟s

12

affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes

13

the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633

14

(9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry

15

into causation must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each

16

individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional

17

deprivation. Id.

18
19

CONCLUSION
The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file an

20

amended complaint on or before August 8, 2016. The first amended complaint must

21

include the caption and civil case number used in this order (16-2518 JCS (PR)) and the

22

words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. It must address all deficiencies

23

discussed above. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous

24

complaints, plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes

25

to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

26

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior

27

complaint by reference. Any claims not raised in the amended complaint will be deemed

28

waived. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in
3

1
2

dismissal of this action without further notice to plaintiff.
It is plaintiff‟s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

3

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

4

of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court‟s orders in a timely fashion or ask

5

for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this

6

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2016

9

_________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LONNIE CHARLES BROWN,

Case No. 16-cv-02518-JCS

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

EDMUND JERRY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on July 12, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Lonnie Charles Brown ID: P-96708
Pelican Bay State Prison
P.O. Box 7500
Crescent City, CA 95532

20
21

Dated: July 12, 2016

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26

By:________________________
Karen Hom, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JOSEPH C. SPERO

27
28
5