referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
- holding that there is no 27 respondeat superior liability under § 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DON ANGELO DAVIS, No. 2:20-CV-0077-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 HUTCHESON, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1).
19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
21 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
4 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
5 and conclusory.
6
7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
8 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Hutcheson, Property Sergeant at
9 High Desert State Prison (HDSP); (2) Matthews, Unit Housing Officer at HDSP; (3) Spearman,
10 the Warden at HDSP; and (4) Ralph Diaz, the Secretary of the California Department of
11 Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). See ECF No. 1., pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff states that, on March
12 28, 2019, he was escorted to receive his legal paperwork and other property. See id. at 3.
13 According to plaintiff, defendant Hutcheson was the property officer. See id. Plaintiff claims he
14 was placed in a small room with his four boxes of property. See id. Plaintiff states that two of
15 the boxes had been opened and his jar of coffee “was poured over every thing on both boxes and I
16 knew that wasn’t by accident. . . .” Id. Plaintiff adds that, upon searching through his property,
17 he realized some items were missing, in particular a movie manuscript he was writing. See id. at
18 4. Plaintiff describes other missing and/or damaged property. See id. Plaintiff also states he saw
19 evidence that “rodents were eating through a lot of my soups.” Id.
20 Plaintiff states he asked defendant Hutcheson about the problems with his property
21 boxes. See id. In particular, plaintiff inquired about a missing book and fan. See id. According
22 to plaintiff: “Hutcheson gave me a cold stare and stated. . . ‘I didn’t see no fan and I didn’t take
23 your book.’” Id. Plaintiff adds: “I knew at that point that it was he [Hutcheson] that disrespected
24 me by taking my book, fan, and pouring coffee over my property. . . .” Id. Plaintiff asserts that
25 defendant Hutcheson acted in retaliation for plaintiff having filed an inmate grievance against
26 him. See id. According to plaintiff, defendant Hutcheson was “. . .showing me that is what you
27 get for writing me [Hutcheson] up.” Id.
28 / / /
1 II. DISCUSSION
2 In this case, the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint states facts which appear to
3 be sufficient to sustain a First Amendment claim against defendant Hutcheson based on
4 retaliation. The Court however, finds that plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any claims upon
5 which relief can be granted as to the remaining defendants. Finally, plaintiff cannot state any
6 cognizable due process claim arising from lost of or damage to his property.
7 A. Retaliation – Defendant Hutcheson
8 In order to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation, the prisoner must
9 establish that he was retaliated against for exercising a constitutional right, and that the retaliatory
10 action was not related to a legitimate penological purpose, such as preserving institutional
11 security. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). In meeting
12 this standard, the prisoner must demonstrate a specific link between the alleged retaliation and the
13 exercise of a constitutional right. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th Cir. 1995);
14 Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 1989). The prisoner must also
15 show that the exercise of First Amendment rights was chilled, though not necessarily silenced, by
16 the alleged retaliatory conduct. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000), see also
17 Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 569 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, the prisoner plaintiff must
18 establish the following in order to state a claim for retaliation: (1) prison officials took adverse
19 action against the inmate; (2) the adverse action was taken because the inmate engaged in
20 protected conduct; (3) the adverse action chilled the inmate’s First Amendment rights; and (4) the
21 adverse action did not serve a legitimate penological purpose. See Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 568.
22 As to the chilling effect, the Ninth Circuit in Rhodes observed: “If Rhodes had not
23 alleged a chilling effect, perhaps his allegations that he suffered harm would suffice, since harm
24 that is more than minimal will almost always have a chilling effect.” Id. at n.11. By way of
25 example, the court cited Pratt in which a retaliation claim had been decided without discussing
26 chilling. See id. This citation is somewhat confusing in that the court in Pratt had no reason to
27 discuss chilling because it concluded that the plaintiff could not prove the absence of legitimate
28 penological interests. See Pratt, 65 F.3d at 808-09. Nonetheless, while the court has clearly
1 stated that one of the “basic elements” of a First Amendment retaliation claim is that the adverse
2 action “chilled the inmates exercise of his First Amendment rights,” id. at 567-68, see also
3 Resnick, 213 F.3d at 449, the comment in Rhodes at footnote 11 suggests that adverse action
4 which is more than minimal satisfies this element. Thus, if this reading of Rhodes is correct, the
5 chilling effect element is essentially subsumed by adverse action.
6 In this case, plaintiff sufficiently alleges the elements of a retaliation claim – that
7 he filed a grievance against Hutcheson, which is a constitutionally protected activity under the
8 First Amendment, and that he suffered adverse action as a consequence when Hutcheson
9 damaged and/or destroyed his property.
10 B. Causal Link – Defendant Matthews
11 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
12 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See
13 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
14 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
15 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
16 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
17 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
18 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
19 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
20 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
21 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
22 In this case, plaintiff names Matthews as a defendant, but asserts no facts specific
23 to this individual. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend.
24 C. Supervisor Liability – Defendants Spearman and Diaz
25 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their
26 employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no
27 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional
28 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The
1 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on
2 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government
3 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct
4 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Supervisory
5 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of
6 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be
7 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v.
8 Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc).
9 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such
10 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v.
11 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir.
12 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in
13 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
14 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the
15 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676.
16 In this case, plaintiff names two supervisory defendants – Spearman, the prison
17 warden, and Diaz, the Secretary of the CDCR. Plaintiff has not, however, alleged facts to show
18 how either Spearman or Diaz personally acted to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Rather,
19 it appears plaintiff is suing Spearman and Diaz under a respondeat superior liability, which is not
20 cognizable in a federal civil rights action under § 1983. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity
21 to amend.
22 D. Property Loss and/or Damage
23 Where a prisoner alleges the deprivation of a liberty or property interest caused by
24 the random and unauthorized action of a prison official, there is no claim cognizable under 42
25 U.S.C. § 1983 if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Zinermon v. Burch,
26 494 U.S. 113, 129-32 (1990); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984). A state’s post-
27 deprivation remedy may be adequate even though it does not provide relief identical to that
28 available under § 1983. See Hudson, 468 U.S. at 531 n.11. A due process claim is not barred,
1 however, where the deprivation is foreseeable and the state can therefore be reasonably expected
2 to make pre-deprivation process available. See Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 136-39. An available
3 state common law tort claim procedure to recover the value of property is an adequate remedy.
4 See id. at 128-29.
5 Here, defendant Hutcheson’s alleged conduct was not foreseeable and the
6 availability of adequate post-deprivation remedies bars any due process claim related to the loss
7 and/or destruction of plaintiff’s property.
8
9 III. CONCLUSION
10 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
11 amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
12 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an
13 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
14 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the
15 prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An
16 amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
17 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
18 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
19 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
20 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
21 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
22 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
23 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended
24 complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and
25 recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such
26 further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.
27 / / /
28 / / /
wOASe 2 OU EOIN RMU OI Oe AY
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file a first amended
2 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
3
4
5
6
7 | Dated: June 5, 2020 Ssvcqo_
8 DENNIS M. COTA
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28