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 MARILYN YVETTE COOK, No. 2:21-CV-0893-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY, 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 original 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 Sacramento County and Sheriff Scott R. Jones as defendants. ECF
9 No. 1, pg. 2. Plaintiff alleges the following:
10 My constitutional and inalienable rights have been violated.
Furthermore, I have suffered [], crimes against humanity, and war
11 crimes as a pretrial detainee at Sac. Co. main jail. [] The
disadvantages of federalism is the states and local governments can
12 block important national policies such as civil rights (2) allows the
power of local interest to go unchecked and allows for [] variations
13 on how people are treated. Sac. Co. jail has treated me and other
pretrial detainees as if we are enemies of the state when we are not.
14
15 Id. at 3.
16
17 II. DISCUSSION
18 Plaintiff complaint is insufficient. Specifically, Plaintiff fails to allege an actual
19 connection or link between the actions of the named Defendants and the alleged deprivations.
20 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
21 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See
22 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
23 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
24 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
25 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
26 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
27 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
28 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
1 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
2 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
3 Here, Plaintiff does not even mention Defendant Jones in Plaintiff’s supporting
4 facts. Additionally, there is no mention of any actions taken by any person or entity in Plaintiff’s
5 supporting facts. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend. Upon amending, Plaintiff
6 should keep in mind the following: as to each Defendant, Plaintiff must allege which Defendant
7 took what action that caused which specific constitutional violation.
8 Further, Plaintiff references a complaint that was allegedly mailed to the U.S. clerk
9 on April 29, 2021. Plaintiff is advised that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
10 make Plaintiff’s complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. A complaint must be complete in
11 itself without reference to any prior pleading. Id.
12
13 III. CONCLUSION
14 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
15 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
16 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
17 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
18 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
19 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
20 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
21 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
22 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
23 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
24 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate
25 how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
26 rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific
27 terms how each named defendant is involved and must set forth some affirmative link or
28 connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto,
1 | 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
2 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file a first amended complaint within the
3 | time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
4 | 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
5 | with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
6 | See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8 1. Plaintiffs original complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
9 2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of
10 || service of this order.
11
12
13 | Dated: January 7, 2022 Ssvcqo_
DENNIS M. COTA
15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28