(PC) Acquah v. Baughman ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH ALLAN ACQUAH, No. 2:19-cv-1470 DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Plaintiff’s complaint was filed here on July 31, 2019. However, the complaint is dated August 19 15, 2019, after its filing here, and it is not signed. 20 The court cannot consider unsigned filings, and the complaint must therefore be stricken 21 from the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); E.D. Cal. R. 131. Plaintiff will be provided thirty (30) 22 days to file a signed and appropriately dated complaint. Below, the court sets out the pleading 23 standards and the legal standards which appear to apply to plaintiff’s claims. 24 I. Pleading Standards 25 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 26 governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 27 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims 28 that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 1 granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 2 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2). 3 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 5 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 6 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 7 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 8 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. Rule 8(a)(2) of 9 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 11 the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 12 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 13 However, in order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must 14 contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain 15 factual allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 16 550 U.S. at 555. In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the 17 allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 18 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all 19 doubts in the plaintiff’s favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 20 The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 21 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 22 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 23 or other proper proceeding for redress. 24 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 25 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 26 Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 27 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 28 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform 1 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 2 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 3 Therefore, to state a claim under § 1983, plaintiff must clearly identify each defendant and 4 describe just what that defendant did that violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff should 5 carefully review the legal standards set out below to determine whether a defendant’s conduct 6 amounts to a constitutional violation. 7 II. Legal Standards 8 A. Excessive Force 9 The unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain constitutes cruel and unusual punishment 10 prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986); Ingraham v. 11 Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). Neither 12 accident nor negligence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, as “[i]t is obduracy and 13 wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by 14 the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. 15 What is needed to show unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain “varies according to 16 the nature of the alleged constitutional violation.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) 17 (citing Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320). In order to prevail on a claim of cruel and unusual punishment, 18 however, a prisoner must allege and prove that objectively he suffered a sufficiently serious 19 deprivation and that subjectively prison officials acted with deliberate indifference in allowing or 20 causing the deprivation to occur. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99 (1991). 21 For claims arising out of the use of excessive physical force, the issue is “‘whether force 22 was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically 23 to cause harm.’” Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam) (quoting Hudson, 503 24 U.S. at 7). The objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim is contextual and responsive 25 to contemporary standards of decency, Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8, and although de minimis uses of 26 force do not violate the Constitution, the malicious and sadistic use of force to cause harm always 27 violates contemporary standards of decency, regardless of whether or not significant injury is 28 evident, Wilkins, 559 U.S. at 37-8 (citing Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10). 1 B. Supervisory Liability 2 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 3 employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant holds a 4 supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must 5 be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. 6 Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the 7 involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of 8 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 9 To allege a defendant instituted a prison policy that harmed him, plaintiff must: (1) 10 identify that policy with specificity, (2) show that the defendant was directly responsible for it, (3) 11 show that the defendant knew the policy could cause plaintiff harm, and (4) show how the policy 12 caused him harm. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011). To allege a 13 defendant failed to train, plaintiff must show: (1) that the defendant was responsible for that 14 training, (2) just what the defendant did or did not do, (3) that the defendant knew his actions 15 could cause plaintiff harm, and (4) that the actions did cause plaintiff harm. See Edgerly v. City 16 & Cnty. of S.F., 599 F.3d 946, 962 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissing supervisory liability claim when 17 no facts “suggest [Sheriff] provided any training to Officers...., or that he was responsible for 18 providing formal training to any officers.”). 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is stricken from the record for lack of a signature; 21 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a civil rights complaint form; 22 3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff must file a signed, 23 appropriately-dated complaint; and 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 4. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this court will recommend this action be 2 dismissed. 3 DATED: August 2, 2019 4 5 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 DLB:9 12 DB/prisoner-civil rights/acqu1470.no sign 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28