(PC) Hill v. Bowers ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON HILL, No. 2:21-CV-1602-KJM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BOWERS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant 18 to 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). 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) R. Bowers; (2) Kathleen Allison; 9 (3) John Novey; (4) Sgt. Rios; (5) Jeff Macomber; (6) Officer Gebheart; (7) Connie Gipson; (8) 10 Lori Zamora; (9) Sadie Richmond; (10) Trina Hirsig; (11) Russh Boyd; (12) Kimberly Siebiel; 11 and (13) Jennifer Weaver. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff states the following: 12 Your offer to contract for subject matter jurisditiction and or 13 summary judgement is hereby rejected and returned to you in full accord with federal truth and lending act UCC 1-308 your ordered to 14 prove up the charges or claim or cease and desist under the color of law[.] Any further correspondence from the sender signers agents 15 heirs or assigns are representing me or Cymeyon V. Hill AKA Jack Rabbit Patriot are hereby fired[.] All documents must be answerd 16 under penalty and perjury without prejudice witout recourse UCC 1- 308 without prejudice[.] Truth affidavit by notice criminal 17 complaint[.] I Jack Rabbit Patriot Cymeyon V. Hill being of sound mind over the age of 21 years old have firsthand knowledge of the 18 facts stated therein[.] I will tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the pains of penalty and perjury. I am not 19 a created entity[,] a corporation[,] a British subject[,] a subject of the British Isles[,] a citizen of England[,] a subject of the United 20 Kingdom[,] nor a British Common Wealth: A citizen of the United States[,] a 14th Amendment citizen etc. I Cymeyon V. Hill AKA 21 Jack Rabbit Patriot am a child of the Creator YHWH an heir of the King Yesha. And therefore my citizenship comes from Heaven 22 while a sojourner on earth I am inhabitant of the land of the Creator YHWH[.] My father YHWH is sovereign[.] Therefore I am 23 sovereign. [Plaintiff signs and continues.] The following criminal complaint is the sole foundation of this document with attached 24 exhibits from medical board including injuries and damages from all parties for $24 million dollars and the felony charges for federal 25 indictment etc. Plaintiff is a civil detainee . . . . Please refer to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 3 demand for resolution of dispute by 26 commercial law. Charges 1. Racketeering 27 2. endangering safety 3. denying due process 28 4. excessive force 1 5. denying medical attention 6. falsfying medical documents 2 7. conspiracy to murder civil detainee 8. violating civil commitment 3 9. fraud of contract 4 ECF No. 1, pgs. 2-6 (errors in original). 5 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff’s complaint fails to link any of the named defendants to a constitutional 8 violation. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual connection 9 or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. 10 Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person 11 ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he 12 does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which 13 he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. 14 Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the 15 involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of 16 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to 17 each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. 18 Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988). 19 Plaintiff lists thirteen (13) defendants but fails to accuse any of them of violating a 20 constitutional right. Therefore, Plaintiff’s original complaint shall be dismissed. Plaintiff will be 21 given an opportunity to cure the defects by filing a first amended complaint. Upon amending, 22 Plaintiff is advised that as to each named defendant, Plaintiff must allege which Defendant took 23 what action that caused which specific constitutional violation. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 3 amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire 4 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is 5 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See 6 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to 7 amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended 8 complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if 9 Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make 10 Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be 11 complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 12 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 13 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 14 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 15 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 16 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 17 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 18 Finally, Plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the 19 time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 20 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply 21 with Rule 8 may, in the Court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). 22 See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 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: December 13, 2021 Ssvcqo_ 7 DENNIS M. COTA 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28