referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
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 DESHONE SMITH, No. 2:20-CV-1196-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SERGEANT HICKS, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint (ECF No. 4).
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, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison (HOSP), alleges that HDSP staff
9 were deliberately indifferent to his serious safety concerns and that such indifference ultimately
10 lead to Plaintiff sustaining a serious bodily injury. ECF No. 4 at 6. Plaintiff further alleges that
11 both High Desert State Prison and California State Prison Corcoran (CSPC) medical staff were
12 deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after being assaulted. Id. at 8. Plaintiff names five
13 defendants: Sergeant Hicks, Officer B. Corraiejo, the facility counselor, HDSP medical staff, and
14 CSPC medical staff.
15
16 II. DISCUSSION
17 Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state a claim of deliberate indifference against
18 Sergeant Hicks. Plaintiff informed Sergeant Hicks of his safety concerns and desire to transfer.
19 Id. at 8. Sergeant Hicks denied Plaintiff’s request stating that he did not care about Plaintiff’s
20 safety concerns and that he does not help sex offenders get off the yard. Id. Plaintiff asked
21 Sergeant Hicks to report Plaintiff’s concerns to his Lieutenant. Id. Sergeant Hicks denied that
22 request. Id.
23 Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to state a claim of deliberate indifference against
24 Officer Corrairejo. Plaintiff asked Officer B. Corraiejo to help him get in contact with any facility
25 Lieutenant or Captain to whom he could express his safety concerns, because none of the officers
26 on duty would help him. Id. at 10. Officer B. Corraiejo denied Plaintiff’s request because he did
27 not want to go around the chain of command with Sergeant Hicks. Id.
28 / / /
1 Plaintiff’s claims against the facility counselor, High Desert State Prison medical
2 staff, and Corcoran State Prison medical staff all fail under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
3 8(a)(2) because they fail to identify particular defendants. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §
4 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of the named
5 defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658
6 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of
7 a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in
8 another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes
9 the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.
10 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in
11 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
12 Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s
13 causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th
14 Cir. 1988). Because proper identification of particular defendants might give rise to cognizable
15 claims, however, amendment is appropriate.
16
17 III. CONCLUSION
18 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
19 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
20 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an
21 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
22 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the
23 prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An
24 amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
25 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the
26 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
27 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
28 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
1 || between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
2 | 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
3 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended
4 || complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and
5 || recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such
6 || further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims.
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended
8 || complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
9
10 || Dated: February 2, 2021 = WS GC
DENNIS M. COTA
12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28