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 ROBERT CHARLES JONES, No. 2:20-CV-1690-TLN-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 RIO COSUMNES CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action under 42
19 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1.
20 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
21 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
22 § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
23 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
24 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
25 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
26 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
27 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
28 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
1 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
2 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege
3 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
4 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
5 impossible for the Court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
6 and conclusory.
7
8 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS
9 Plaintiff names a single defendant – the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, which
10 is a county jail. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. According to Plaintiff:
11 This lawsuit is to reference “Covid-19” and that the CDC recommendation
are not being met. Ther [sic] is no social distancing, mask, unsanitary
12 environment, and that I am inicent [sic] till [sic] proven guilty. My claim
does not meet a death sentence. Without any medical testing being done,
13 violation of California Article 1-6 and being violated the 8th and 14th
amendment with due process of law subjecting me to cruel and unusual
14 punishment.
15 Id. at 3.
16
17 II. DISCUSSION
18 Municipalities and other local government units are among those “persons” to
19 whom § 1983 liability applies. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
20 Counties and municipal government officials are also “persons” for purposes of § 1983. See id. at
21 691; see also Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443 (9th Cir. 1989). A local
22 government unit, however, may not be held responsible for the acts of its employees or officials
23 under a respondeat superior theory of liability. See Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S.
24 397, 403 (1997). Thus, municipal liability must rest on the actions of the municipality, and not of
25 the actions of its employees or officers. See id. To assert municipal liability, therefore, the
26 plaintiff must allege that the constitutional deprivation complained of resulted from a policy or
27 custom of the municipality. See id. A claim of municipal liability under § 1983 is sufficient to
28 withstand dismissal even if it is based on nothing more than bare allegations that an individual
1 defendant’s conduct conformed to official policy, custom, or practice. See Karim-Panahi v. Los
2 Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988).
3 Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a custom, policy, or practice of Defendant Rio
4 Cosumnes Correctional Center which was the moving force behind the alleged constitutional
5 violation.
6
7 III. CONCLUSION
8 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
9 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
10 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
11 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
12 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
13 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
14 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
15 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
16 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
17 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
18 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the
19 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
20 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
21 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
22 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
23 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
24 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
25 time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
26 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
27 with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
28 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. Plaintiffs original complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to
3 | amend; and
4 2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of
5 | service of this order.
6
7 | Dated: March 23, 2021 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