From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Tilton

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1028 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1028 GEB GGH P.

May 28, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has paid the filing fee. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The court may screen the complaint notwithstanding the payment of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 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. Id.

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.

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 Corp. v. Twombly, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007). "The pleading must contain something more . . . than . . . a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action."Id., quoting 5 C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1216, pp. 235-235 (3d ed. 2004). 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 complaint states a colorable claim for relief against defendants American Legion Ambulance, Knipp, Johnson, Hamilton, Martinez, Smith, Gallaway, Hashimoto, Ziebert, Santos, Pieri, Taylor, Tucker, Micholetti and Chavez pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

The complaint contains no specific allegations against defendants Campbell, Subia, Garcia, Blim, Brimhall, Castro, Vandendries or Parks.

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).

Because plaintiff has failed to link defendants Campbell, Subia, Garcia, Blim, Brimhall, Castro, Vandendries and Parks to the alleged deprivations, the claims against these defendants are dismissed with leave to amend.

The complaint makes claims against individuals who are not identified as defendants in the section of the complaint where plaintiff lists the defendants. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he must specifically identify each person he intends to name as a defendant.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, 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 claims against all defendants but for American Legion Ambulance, Knipp, Johnson, Hamilton, Martinez, Smith, Gallaway, Hashimoto, Ziebert, Santos, Pieri, Taylor, Tucker, Micholetti and Chavez are dismissed for the reasons discussed above, with leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that these defendants be dismissed from this action.

2. Upon filing an amended complaint or expiration of the time allowed therefor, the court will make further orders for service of process upon some or all of the defendants.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Tilton

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1028 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Tilton

Case Details

Full title:LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. JAMES TILTON, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 28, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1028 GEB GGH P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)