Opinion
No. CIV S-07-2544 WBS DAD P.
February 27, 2008
ORDER
On December 11, 2007, this court dismissed plaintiff's complaint and granted him thirty days leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. However, on January 2, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address, which indicates that he wishes to proceed with this action. Accordingly, the court will grant plaintiff an additional thirty days to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court's December 11, 2007 order. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.
If plaintiff no longer wishes to proceed with this action, he should file a request that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a).
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint in accordance with the court's December 11, 2007 order. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice; and
2. The Clerk of the Court shall re-serve plaintiff with the court's December 11, 2007 orders (Doc. Nos. 5 and 6).
ORDER
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $0.10 will be assessed by this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires only 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' in order to 'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;" it must contain factual allegations sufficient "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic, 127 S. Ct. at 1965. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor.Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
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.42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees under a theory ofrespondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged.See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
In the present case, plaintiff has identified as defendants Sheriff John McGinness; Dr. A Hamby; Dr. S. Tomkiu; Registered Nurse T. Smith; and Nursing Supervisor Suzanne Haley.
Plaintiff alleges that he is a federal prisoner currently housed at the Sacramento County Main Jail due to his medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that he has undergone two major surgeries as a result of a gun shot wound that shattered his shin bone. Plaintiff alleges that he was housed on the medical floor of the jail from October 3, 2006 to March 16, 2007, at which time plaintiff was told that he was going to be removed from the medical floor and placed in the general population without crutches or a walking cane.
Plaintiff alleges that he is forced to walk on his leg and suffers great pain in his leg, knee, and ankle on a regular basis. Plaintiff contends that, since March 16, 2007, the Sacramento County Main Jail has failed to provide him with the physical therapy he needs. In fact, plaintiff alleges that he has not been offered physical therapy or seen a physical therapist. Plaintiff alleges that the treatment he has received at the Sacramento County Main Jail amounts to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
Plaintiff requests that the court hold defendants accountable for his pain and suffering and that defendants pay him two million dollars in compensatory damages and five million dollars in punitive damages.
The allegations in plaintiff's complaint are so vague and conclusory that the court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice to the defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he is advised that inEstelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), the Supreme Court held that inadequate medical care did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment cognizable under § 1983 unless the mistreatment rose to the level of "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs." In applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit has held that before it can be said that a prisoner's civil rights have been abridged, "the indifference to his medical needs must be substantial. Mere 'indifference,' 'negligence,' or 'medical malpractice' will not support this cause of action."Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980), citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06.
In addition, plaintiff is advised that he must allege facts demonstrating how defendants' actions rose to the level of "deliberate indifference." Plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the denial of his medical care. Plaintiff's original complaint fails to allege any specific causal link between the actions of the named defendants and the claimed constitutional violations. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's November 28, 2007 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.10. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Sheriff of the Sacramento County Main Jail filed concurrently herewith.
3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
4. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF INMATE FILING FEE
To: The Sheriff of the Sacramento County Main Jail, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814:Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff has been assessed an initial partial filing fee of $0.10 for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Upon payment of that initial partial filing fee, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments in the amount of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account. The Sacramento County Main Jail is required to send to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee and thereafter payments from plaintiff's trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the statutory filing fee of $350.00 is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Sheriff of the Sacramento County Main Jail or a designee shall collect from plaintiff's trust account an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $0.10 and shall forward the amount to the Clerk of the Court. Said payment shall be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action.
2. Thereafter, the Sheriff of the Sacramento County Main Jail or a designee shall collect from plaintiff's trust account the $349.90 balance of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from plaintiff's trust account in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust account and forwarding payments to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this action.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order and a copy of plaintiff's signed in forma pauperis affidavit on the Sheriff of the Sacramento County Main Jail, 651 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Financial Department of the court.