# Tucker v. Day > District Court, N.D. California · July 13, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10064490 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** July 13, 2020 - **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/10064490 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRAYDEL MIGUEL TUCKER, Case No. 20-cv-01255-WHO (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT v. 9 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 10 R. DAY, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Traydel Tucker alleges that two prison guards are responsible for a prison 15 vehicle transport accident and Tucker’s resulting injuries. His 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint 16 containing these allegations is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1915A(a). 18 Tucker has not stated a claim for relief. Claims of negligence, such as a claim of 19 negligent driving, are not actionable under section 1983. His allegation that Sergeant R. 20 Day failed to put him in a seatbelt might be actionable, but Tucker will have to provide 21 more information. His claims against the second guard, D. Navarrete, are insufficient 22 because although Tucker names him as a defendant, he provides no description of 23 Navarette’s actions. 24 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 25 August 28, 2020. Failure to file a proper amended complaint by the deadline, or a failure 26 to comply in every respect with the instructions given in this order, will result in the 27 dismissal of this suit and the entry of judgment in favor of defendants. 1 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. Standard of Review 4 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 5 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 6 governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 7 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 8 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 9 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 10 See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 11 A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 12 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 13 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 14 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 15 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 16 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 17 conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 18 be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 19 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 21 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 22 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 23 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 24 B. Legal Claims 25 Tucker alleges that he suffered injuries from an August 30, 2019 vehicle accident 26 caused by the negligent actions of R. Day and D. Navarrete, prison guards at Salinas 27 Valley State Prison. He alleges Day “drove the transporting van directly up the wheelchair 1 the wheel ramp.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) He alleges that Day had earlier refused 2 Tucker’s request for a seatbelt. When Tucker arrived at the facility, he was placed in a 3 holding cell but received no medical assistance. 4 The claims against Day are insufficient. Day’s negligent driving alone cannot be 5 the basis for an Eighth Amendment claim under section 1983. Neither negligence nor 6 gross negligence constitutes deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. Farmer 7 v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 & n.4 (1994); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 8 (1976). His failure to put Tucker in a seatbelt might be actionable, but Tucker has not 9 stated how he was injured. Without a specific description of the physical injuries Tucker 10 suffered and an allegation that such injuries would not have occurred but for Day’s actions, 11 no claim is stated. Accordingly, Tucker’s claims against Day are DISMISSED with leave 12 to amend. 13 Tucker’s claims against Navarrete are also DISMISSED with leave to amend. 14 Tucker names Navarette as a defendant but does not describe his actions in any way. 15 Without specific factual allegations describing Navarette’s actions and responsibilities, the 16 Court cannot assess whether he could be liable for his conduct. 17 In composing his amended complaint, Tucker should pay close attention to the 18 following. “A person deprives another ‘of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 19 section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts, or 20 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of 21 which [the plaintiff complains].” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) 22 (quoting Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978)). The inquiry into causation 23 must be individualized and focus on the duties and responsibilities of each individual 24 defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. 25 Id. Defendants cannot be held liable for a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 26 unless they were integral participants in the unlawful conduct. Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 27 1228, 1241 (9th Cir. 2018). 1 || supervisors. There is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 2 || F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). It is not enough that the supervisor merely has a 3 || supervisory relationship over the defendants; the plaintiff must show that the supervisor 4 || “participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to 5 || prevent them.” /d. Furthermore, supervisor defendants are entitled to qualified immunity 6 || where the allegations against them are simply “bald” or “conclusory” because such 7 || allegations do not “plausibly” establish the supervisors’ personal involvement in their 8 || subordinates’ constitutional wrong. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1948-52. 9 CONCLUSION 10 The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file an amended complaint on or before 11 || August 28, 2020. The amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number 12 || used in this order (20-01255 WHO (PR)) and the words FIRST AMENDED 5 13 || COMPLAINT on the first page. The amended complaint must also appear on this Court’s 14 || form. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, 15 || plaintiff must include in his first amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present a 16 and all of the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 3 17 || (9th Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. 18 || Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal 19 || of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: July 13, 2020 | ( . NUQe ® 22 ILLIAM H. ORRICK 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10064490. Public record. Not legal advice.