Parks v. Haynes et al

Filing 5

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND, signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Plaintiff's Show Cause Response or Amended Complaint due by 12/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Complaint (blank), # 2 Address/Service List (blank), # 3 Pro Se Instruction Sheet)**12 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Jonathan Parks, Prisoner ID: 799688)(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 JONATHAN E. PARKS, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 3:17-cv-05884-BHS-DWC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND v. RON HAYNES, et al., Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff Jonathan E. Parks, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 17 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff’s Complaint 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to serve the Complaint but provides Plaintiff leave 19 to file an amended pleading by December 15, 2017, to cure the deficiencies identified herein. BACKGROUND 20 21 Plaintiff, who is housed at the Washington State Penitentiary, filed this § 1983 action. It 22 appears Plaintiff’s allegations occurred when he was previously housed at the Clallam Bay 23 Corrections Center. He alleges that his civil rights were violated when prison staff allegedly 24 retaliated against him for filing complaints, denying him showers, proper clothing, food, and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND - 1 1 access to his legal papers and the law library. Dkt. 4 at 14-15. He also claims he was denied 2 adequate food after going on a hunger strike for three days. Id. at 14. Though he includes 3 numerous kites and grievances disbursed amongst his Complaint, he does not explain how any 4 particular person or persons violated his rights. See Dkt. 4. He requests relief in the form of 5 monetary damages for his denial of food and additional damages for “preventing access to the 6 courts[,] . . . preventing contacting attorney[,] . . . [and] misuse of the [disciplinary] proceeding.” 7 Id. at 26. 8 9 DISCUSSION Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen 10 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 11 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss the 12 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 13 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 14 who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 15 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). 16 In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he 17 suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) 18 the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton 19 v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to 20 identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 21 (1994). To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually 22 named defendants caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the 23 complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND - 2 1 Plaintiff’s Complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring dismissal if not corrected in an 2 amended complaint. 3 4 I. Personal Participation Plaintiff makes broad allegations that his constitutional rights were violated when prison 5 staff retaliated against him by depriving him of food, clothing, and access to the courts. To state a 6 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff must allege facts showing how a defendant caused or 7 personally participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint. Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 8 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988); Arnold, 637 F.2d at 1355. A person subjects another to a deprivation of a 9 constitutional right when committing an affirmative act, participating in another’s affirmative act, 10 or omitting to perform an act which is legally required. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 11 Cir. 1978). Sweeping conclusory allegations against an official are insufficient to state a claim for 12 relief. Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. 13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to allege the personal participation of any Defendants. He has 14 provided a list naming all Defendants. Dkt. 4 at 2. However, he does not describe how any 15 Defendants actually deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. He alleges that he was 16 deprived food, showers, clothing, and access to the courts, and that the disciplinary process was 17 unlawfully used against him. Id. at 14-15. He further alleges that his legal mail is being tampered 18 with and he has been denied access to legal phone calls as part of a sanction. Id. at 15. Though 19 these may amount to allegations of constitutional violations, Plaintiff does not explain how any 20 particular Defendant contributed to these alleged injuries. Rather, he relies on conclusory 21 allegations, stating broadly that his rights were violated. Because Plaintiff has not alleged 22 personal participation by Defendants, he has not yet stated a claim under § 1983 for which relief 23 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND - 3 1 can be granted. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause or file an amended complaint 2 remedying the deficiencies noted herein. 3 4 II. Instruction to Plaintiff If Plaintiff intends to pursue a § 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file an 5 amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he must write a short, plain statement 6 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the 7 person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the 8 action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 9 rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See 10 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72 (1976). Further, if Plaintiff intends to include grievances 11 or kites with his amended complaint, they should be attached to the end as exhibits, not 12 distributed throughout the body of his Complaint. 13 Plaintiff shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The 14 amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety, it should be an original 15 and not a copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not incorporate any part of 16 the original complaint by reference. The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for 17 the original Complaint, and not as a supplement. The Court will screen the amended complaint to 18 determine whether it contains factual allegations linking each defendant to the alleged violations 19 of Plaintiff’s rights. The Court will not authorize service of the amended complaint on any 20 defendant who is not specifically linked to a violation of Plaintiff’s rights. 21 If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to adequately address the issues 22 raised herein on or before December 15, 2017, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this 23 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND - 4 1 2 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court declines to serve Plaintiff’s Complaint at this 3 time. However, the Court provides Plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint. 4 The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff the appropriate forms for filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 5 civil rights complaint and for service. The Clerk is further directed to send copies of this Order 6 and Pro Se Instruction Sheet to Plaintiff. 7 8 Dated this 13th day of November, 2017. A 9 10 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND - 5

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?