# (PC) Jackson v. Pickett > District Court, E.D. California · October 15, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031064 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** October 15, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031064 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAUNSE JACKSON, No. 2:21-CV-1186-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. PICKETT, 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 first amended complaint, ECF No. 11. 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, who are prison officials at High 9 Desert State Prison (HDSP): (1) Hueso, a correctional officer; (2) Spinelli, a correctional officer; 10 (3) Eadi, a cook; and (4) Silva, a cook. See ECF No. 11, pg. 1. Plaintiff alleges the following in 11 his two-page first amended complaint: 12 On 5-13-2020 Plaintiff went to medical and was issued a lay in. The lay- in was given to C.O. Spinelli, which along the way was said that never 13 made it to my file. I was assigned to dining hall two on facility C at High Desert State Prison, Susanville, California. Plaintiff had sustained an 14 injury which granted him a lay-in. Cook-Silva call [sic] Plaintiff to work on 8-1-2020 and laughed at Plaintiff stating he doesn’t care about his 15 medical lay-in. On 8-7-2020 I was called in again and was forced to work which ended with Plaintiff reinjuring his left knee. C.O. Hueso and cook- 16 Eadi was aware of the medical lay-in but refuse to uphold it. Because off [sic] threats of disciplinary action Plaintiff kept going to work which led to 17 this. Plaintiff was violated [sic] of his Eighth Amendment right. Do to the mistreatment of Plaintiff’s medical needs and neglect by defendants. 18 Id. at 1-2. 19 20 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint states cognizable claims 23 against Defendants Silva, Hueso, and Eadi for disregard of Plaintiff’s “lay in” which resulted in 24 Plaintiff reinjuring his knee, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff’s first amended 25 complaint, however, does not state a cognizable claim against Defendant Spinelli. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 2 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See 3 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 4 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 5 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 6 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 7 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 8 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 9 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 10 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 11 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 12 As to Defendant Spinelli, Plaintiff merely alleges that he was provided with a copy 13 of the “lay in.” Plaintiff does not allege any facts which would link Spinelli to disregard of the 14 “lay in” resulting in further injury. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend. 15 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 18 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 19 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 20 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 21 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the 22 prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 23 amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 24 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 25 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 26 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 27 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 28 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 1 | 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 2 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 3 | complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and 4 | recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 5 | further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a second amended 7 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 8 9 || Dated: October 15, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10031064. Public record. Not legal advice.