From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Madrigal v. Alameida

United States District Court, C.D. California
Sep 14, 2004
NO. CV 03-9205-CJC(E) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2004)

Opinion

NO. CV 03-9205-CJC(E).

September 14, 2004


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a Complaint on February 17, 2004. Defendants Edward S. Alameida Jr. and Leslie R. Blanks filed a "Motion to Dismiss and to Strike" ("the motion") on July 16, 2004. Plaintiff filed opposition papers on August 17, 2004. Defendants filed a reply on September 10, 2004. The Court has taken the motion under submission without oral argument (See Minute Orders dated July 19, August 2 and August 26, 2004).

STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTION TO DISMISS

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the Court must take as true all factual allegations in the Complaint, and must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Everest Jennings, Inc. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court must construe Plaintiff's pro se Complaint liberally.See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

The Court may not dismiss the Complaint without leave to amend unless "it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations and quotations omitted); see Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (dismissal with prejudice is appropriate where "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief"); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant leave to amend "unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts"; citation and internal quotations omitted).

DISCUSSION

Even construed liberally, the Complaint violates fundamental rules of procedure and, in certain respects, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

A complaint must contain a "short and plain" statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). "Experience teaches that, unless cases are pled clearly and precisely, issues are not joined, discovery is not controlled, the trial court's docket becomes unmanageable, the litigants suffer, and society loses confidence in the court's ability to administer justice." Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted). A complaint is subject to dismissal if "one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996). Each claim founded on a separate occurrence must be stated in a separate count. Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). The paragraphs must be numbered. Id. Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he nevertheless must comply with the rules of procedure. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995) ("pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure").

The Complaint violates these rules of procedure. The Complaint consists largely of a lengthy, rambling, and sometimes day-by-day commentary on the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement. Paragraphs are not numbered. There appears to be a disconnect between Plaintiff's factual and legal allegations.

The Complaint also is substantively defective in certain respects. The Complaint fails to state a claim against Defendant Edward S. Alameida Jr., former director of the California Department of Corrections. An individual defendant is not liable on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation or a causal connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged constitutional deprivation.See Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989);Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). A plaintiff must allege facts showing a supervisor defendant participated in or directed the alleged violation, or knew of the violation and failed to act to prevent it. See Hamilton v. Endell, 981 F.2d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 1992); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633-634 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Barren v. Harringon, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 (1999) ("A plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights."). The Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for supervisorial civil rights liability against Defendant Alameida.

Moreover, some of the alleged conditions of confinement of which Plaintiff complains plainly do not violate the constitution. Prisons need not "be comfortable" or "provide every amenity that one might find desirable." Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982). "[A]n institution's obligation under the eighth amendment is at an end if it furnishes sentenced prisoners with adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety." Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations and quotations omitted). Perhaps because the Complaint is so verbose and unfocused, the Complaint includes allegations regarding trivialities such as the lack of an ideal place to play handball. Such allegations cannot state a constitutional claim. See, e.g., Walker v. Johnson, 544 F. Supp. 345, 360 (E.D. Mich. 1982), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985) ("Clearly, the denial of the sports equipment and recreational tables does not engender the wanton pain that amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation").

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1130; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this Memorandum and Order within which to file a First Amended Complaint, attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint described herein. The First Amended Complaint shall be complete in itself. It shall not refer in any manner to the original Complaint. The First Amended Complaint should contain a "short and plain statement" of the claim or claims for relief, setting forth, in straightforward fashion, the facts supporting each claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), (e). All allegations should be made in numbered paragraphs. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b). Plaintiff should not attempt to add additional defendants without leave of Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Failure to file a timely First Amended Complaint may result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

The Court need not and does not reach any of the issues raised in the papers other than those issues expressly discussed herein. All parties request that the Court take judicial notice of certain documents. Consideration of these documents would not change the result herein.


Summaries of

Madrigal v. Alameida

United States District Court, C.D. California
Sep 14, 2004
NO. CV 03-9205-CJC(E) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2004)
Case details for

Madrigal v. Alameida

Case Details

Full title:RANDY MADRIGAL, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD ALAMEIDA JR., et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, C.D. California

Date published: Sep 14, 2004

Citations

NO. CV 03-9205-CJC(E) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 14, 2004)