(PC) Levi v. Hill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERIOLD B. LEVI, No. 2:19-CV-1162-TLN-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICK HILL, 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 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 the following as defendants: (1) Rick Hill, the prison warden; (2) J. 9 Crawford, a prison Sergeant; and (3) Buchanan, a correctional officer. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. 10 Plaintiff allege defendant Buchanan assaulted him and that defendant Crawford assisted. See id. 11 at 3. According to plaintiff, defendant Hill “allowed this all to take place at his prison.” Id. 12 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 The court finds plaintiff has stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive 15 force claim against defendants Crawford and Buchanan based on plaintiff’s allegation they 16 assaulted him. Plaintiff has not, however, stated a claim against defendant Hill, the prison 17 warden, based on his vague allegation defendant Hill allowed the violation to occur. 18 Supervisory personnel, such as the prison warden, are generally not liable under 19 § 1983 for the actions of their employees. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 20 1989) (holding that there is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only 21 liable for the constitutional violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed 22 the violations. See id. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant 23 can be liable based on knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct 24 because government officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his 25 or her own conduct and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 26 (2009). Supervisory personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a 27 repudiation of constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, 28 however, be liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See 1 Redman v. Cnty of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 2 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such 3 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. 4 Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 5 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in 6 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th 7 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 8 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676. 9 As currently set forth, plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hill is based on nothing 10 more than a theory of respondeat superior, which is not actionable under § 1983. Plaintiff’s 11 allegation that defendant Hill allowed the alleged violation to occur is too vague to show 12 defendant Hill’s personal involvement. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend. 13 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 16 amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 17 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 18 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 19 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the 20 prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 21 amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 22 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 23 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 24 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 25 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 26 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 27 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 28 / / / 1 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 2 | complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and 3 || recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 4 | further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file a first amended 6 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 4 8 9 | Dated: August 16, 2019 Ssvcqo_ 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28