referring to 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to 2 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 ANTHONY TAYLOR, No. 2:23-CV-0302-KJM-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 MIRANDA DROLET,
15 Defendant.
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). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was
22 initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel.
23 Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or
24 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can
25 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
26 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
27 complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
28 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply,
1 concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to
2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice
3 of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121,
4 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity
5 overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail
6 to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening
7 required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory.
8 Plaintiff names as the sole defendant Miranda Drolet. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1.
9 According to Plaintiff, he was arrested on January 6, 2022, and appeared before Judge Brody on
10 January 10, 2022. See id. at 3. Plaintiff states that he was sentenced to 120 days. See id.
11 Plaintiff was arrested again on April 24, 2022, and released. Next, Plaintiff claims that he was
12 arrested on May 22, 2022, for the same charges which resulted in the January 2022 arrest. See id.
13 Plaintiff states that he was arraigned six months later and decided to proceed pro se. Plaintiff
14 claims that the process was invalid because he was not provided a preliminary hearing within ten
15 days of his arrest in May 2022. See id. The complaint does not reference Defendant Drolet.
16 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual
17 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See
18 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A
19 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of
20 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform
21 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.”
22 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations
23 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See
24 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth
25 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional
26 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint makes no reference whatsoever to the only named
2 defendant – Miranda Drolet. Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to amend to explain how this
3 individual participated in or caused a violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or statutory rights.
4 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
5 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
6 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
7 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
8 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
9 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
10 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
11 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
12 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
13 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
14 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the
15 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See
16 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
17 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
18 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
19 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
20 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
21 time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
22 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
23 with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
24 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. Plaintiffs original complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
3 2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of
4 | service of this order.
5
6 || Dated: August 16, 2023 Svc
7 DENNIS M. COTA
8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28