prison official’s failure to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may 23 be basis for liability
How later courts described this case
- prison official’s failure to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may 23 be basis for liability
- affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, 6 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 HENRY DESEAN ADAMS, Case No. 22-cv-00047-AMO (PR)
8 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
9 v.
10 JOSHUA CLARK, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12 I. INTRODUCTION
13 Plaintiff Henry Adams, who is currently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony, filed
14 a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 stemming from alleged constitutional
15 violations while he was being held in the custody of the named and doe defendants from the
16 Richmond Police Department (“RPD”) and presumably at the Martinez Detention Facility, where
17 he was previously incarcerated. Dkt. 1.
18 On July 7, 2022, the Honorable Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who handled this matter
19 prior to the undersigned, reviewed Adams’s original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
20 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within twenty-eight days, with various instructions
21 to correct certain deficiencies, including that Adams file an amended complaint that complies with
22 the joinder requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). Dkt. 5.
23 On August 8, 2022, Adams filed an amended complaint attempting to address the flaws in
24 his original complaint. Dkt. 6. On January 5, 2023, the Court reviewed Adams’s amended
25 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed it with leave to amend within twenty-
26 eight days, with various instructions to correct deficiencies similar to those in the original
27 complaint. Dkt. 7. The Court again provided Adams with the rules regarding joinder of
1 Adams has since filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”), which the Court now
2 reviews under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Dkt. 8. In his SAC, Adams names the following defendants
3 from the RPD: Sgt. Joshua Clark, Officer Kimberly Heartly, and Officer C. Groge. Id. at 2.
4 Adams seeks monetary and punitive damages. Id. at 3.
5 II. DISCUSSION
6 A. Standard of Review
7 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
8 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
9 § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion
10 of the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
11 relief may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
12 relief.” Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
13 Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
14 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
15 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged
16 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
17 42, 48 (1988).
18 B. Legal Claims
19 The claims in the SAC include multiple constitutional violations and state law claims
20 against the defendants, including the following: identity theft “to purchase properties, vehicles,
21 jewelry, and other items”; conspiracy; obstruction of justice; denial of Equal Protection; fraud; and
22 “embezzle[ment] of large sums of money from [Adams].” See Dkt. 8 at 2-4. Again, Adams has
23 failed to comply with the Court’s instructions to file only claims against the named defendants that
24 are properly joined. The SAC is still overbroad and includes multiple claims against the named
25 defendants that Adams found objectionable during the time frame from April 4, 2021 to December
26 22, 2022. Id.
27 Adams lack of clarity and specificity of his claims precludes the Court from allowing a
1 2023 Order, see Dkt. 7, the Court again reminds Adams his complaint must be tailored to the facts
2 and specific allegations, not legal conclusions.
3 For instance, Adams claims all three defendants “conspired together to obstruct justice”
4 and denied him his right to equal protection. Dkt. 8 at 4. To state a claim for a conspiracy to
5 violate one’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must state specific facts to
6 support the existence of the claimed conspiracy. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d
7 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Conclusory allegations of
8 conspiracy are not enough to support a section 1983 conspiracy claim. Burns v. County of King,
9 883 F.2d 819, 821 (9th Cir. 1989). Rather, a plaintiff must plead with particularity which
10 defendants conspired, how they conspired, and how the conspiracy led to a deprivation of the
11 plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 1997). To
12 prove a conspiracy under section 1983, an “agreement or meeting of minds to violate [the
13 plaintiff’s] constitutional rights must be shown.” Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121,
14 1126 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, Adams has not alleged facts sufficient to state a conspiracy claim
15 under section 1983. See Dkt. 8 at 3-4. Specifically, it is unclear from the allegations in the
16 complaint whether Adams is alleging that the correctional officers who allegedly obstructed
17 justice by failing to forward his letters to the fraud unit, conspired to engage in such obstruction of
18 justice, or whether Adams alleges they conspired to allow law enforcement to continue to
19 embezzle money from him, or also conspired to cause other injuries to Adams separate from the
20 alleged obstruction of justice. See id. Further, in the section of the complaint in which Adams
21 sets forth his legal claims, he asserts that the defendants conspired to deprive him of “equal
22 protection,” but he does not specify which facts support his allegations of an equal protection
23 violation. Id. at 4. Finally, Adams’s conspiracy allegations are conclusory, in that he has not
24 pleaded with particularity specific facts that would show the named defendants had an agreement
25 or meeting of the minds to violate his constitutional rights. Based on the foregoing, Adams’s
26 conspiracy claim must be dismissed. Adams may, however, amend his conspiracy claim if he can
27 in good faith allege facts, subject to proof, that cure the pleading deficiencies noted above.
1 (“TAC”) that complies with the necessary pleading requirements, as set forth below.
2 The Court again reminds Adams that in filing his TAC, he should also comply with the
3 appropriate rules regarding civil complaints. Rule 8(d) requires that each averment of a pleading
4 be “simple, concise, and direct,” and may be the basis for dismissal. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
5 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix,
6 replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).
7 In his TAC, Adams must provide a short and plain and separate statement regarding each
8 claim: the specifics regarding the mistreatment he suffered, how it violated his constitutional
9 rights, whether he suffered any injury as a result, and the conduct of each individual defendant that
10 he asserts is responsible for a constitutional violation. Adams must specifically identify what each
11 of the named defendant did or did not do in order to state a claim with regard to each separate
12 claim. While Adams may attach exhibits in support of his claims, he must identify how each
13 applies to his claims.
14 Also in his TAC, Adams must establish legal liability of each person for the claimed
15 violation of his rights. Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if
16 the Adams can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally protected
17 right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of Roseburg, 664
18 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a constitutional right within the
19 meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative act or
20 omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the
21 Adams complains. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 633; see, e.g., Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442
22 (9th Cir. 1995) (prison official’s failure to intervene to prevent Eighth Amendment violation may
23 be basis for liability). Sweeping conclusory allegations will not suffice; Adams must instead “set
24 forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844
25 F.2d at 634. Further, to state a cognizable claim for relief, Adams must allege facts describing
26 how each defendant was involved in, and caused, the alleged violations of his rights.
27 With regard to any supervisory employees named in this action, Adams should be mindful
1 involvement in the constitutional deprivation or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the
2 supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. Redman v. County of San Diego,
3 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). A supervisor therefore generally “is only liable for
4 constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the
5 violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d
6 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
7 Finally, the TAC need not be long. In fact, a brief and clear statement with regard to each
8 claim listing each of the defendant’s actions regarding that claim is preferable. Adams should
9 state his claims simply and need not present a lengthy history unrelated to the actions he
10 complains about. The TAC should comply with Rule 8 and provide a brief and coherent recitation
11 of his claims regarding only those defendants who are properly joined. Adams must also prove
12 that he exhausted all of his claims against each defendant before he filed this action, which is an
13 issue he has failed to address in his SAC.
14 Accordingly, the SAC is DISMISSED with leave to amend and Adams is given one last
15 opportunity to correct the deficiencies outlined above.
16 III. CONCLUSION
17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
18 1. The SAC is DISMISSED with leave to amend, as indicated above. The Court
19 repeats its instructions on how Adams may properly amend his claims, which is taken from Judge
20 Gonzales Rogers’s July 7, 2022 Order of Dismissal With Leave to Amend. See Dkt. 5 at 8-9.
21 Adams’s SAC is DISMISSED with leave to amend in order to give him the opportunity to
22 file a simple, concise and direct TAC which:
23 a. States clearly and simply each claim he seeks to bring in federal court as
24 required under Rule 8, and he should:
25
i. Set forth each claim in a separate numbered paragraph;
26
ii. Identify each defendant and the specific action or actions each
27 defendant took, or failed to take, that allegedly caused the
deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and
iii. Identify the injury resulting from each claim;
1
b. Explains how he has exhausted his administrative remedies as to each
2
claim as against each defendant before he filed this action as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a),
3
or whether such remedies were “unavailable” to him within the meaning of the statute;
4
c. Only alleges those claims that are properly joined under Rule 20(a)
5
(concerning joinder of claims and defendants) or, stated differently, the amended complaint may
6
only allege claims that:
7
8 i. Arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences; and
9
ii. Present questions of law or fact common to all defendants;
10
d. Does not make conclusory allegations linking each defendant by listing
11
them as having direct involvement to his claims without specifying how each defendant was
12
linked through their actions; and
13
e. Does not name any defendant who did not act but is linked solely in his or
14
her respondent superior capacity or against whom Adams cannot allege facts that would establish
15
either supervisorial or municipal liability.
16
2. Within twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Adams shall file his
17
TAC as set forth above. Adams must use the attached civil rights form, write the case number for
18
this action—Case No. 22-cv-00047-AMO (PR)—on the form, clearly label the complaint “Third
19
Amended Complaint,” and complete all sections of the form. Because the TAC completely
20
replaces the original and amended complaints, Adams must include in it all the claims he wishes
21
to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915
22
(1992). He may not incorporate material from the original or amended complaints or his SAC by
23
reference. If Adams wishes to attach any additional pages to the civil rights form, he shall
24
maintain the same format as the form, i.e., answer only the questions asked in the “Exhaustion of
25
Administrative Remedies” section without including a narrative explanation of each grievance
26
filed.
27
Adams’s failure to file his TAC by the twenty-eight-day deadline or to correct the
1 aforementioned deficiencies outlined above will result in the dismissal of this action without
2 || prejudice.
3 3. It is Adams’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Adams must keep the Court
4 || informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion.
5 Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11, a party proceeding pro se whose address changes
6 || while an action is pending must file a notice of change of address promptly, specifying the new
7 address. See L.R. 3-11(a). The Court may dismiss without prejudice a complaint when: (1) mail
8 directed to the pro se party by the Court has been returned to the Court as not deliverable, and
9 (2) the Court fails to receive within sixty days of this return a written communication from the pro
10 || se party indicating a current address. See L.R. 3-11(b).
11 4. The Clerk of the Court shall send Adams a blank civil rights complaint form along
12 || with his copy of this Order.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated: November 15, 2023
it) -
16 ( Nnacel. hahlig~=
5 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN
nited States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28