Message
×
loading..

(PC) Witt v. Solano County Custody Division ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JAMAL WITT, No. 2:22-cv-1042 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 SOLANO COUNTY CUSTODY DIVISION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This 18 proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 19 Plaintiff requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As plaintiff has submitted a 20 declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted. 21 When plaintiff filed his complaint, he was incarcerated in the Solano County Jail. The 22 court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental 23 entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must 24 dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous 25 or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary 26 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 2 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 3 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 4 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 5 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 6 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 7 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 8 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 9 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 10 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 11 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 12 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 13 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 14 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 15 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 16 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 17 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 18 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 19 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 20 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state a claim upon 21 which relief can be granted under federal law. Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed. The 22 court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint. 23 If plaintiff chooses to amend, his amended complaint must be coherent and legible. 24 Plaintiff’s original complaint is impossible to read in certain places due to plaintiff’s poor 25 handwriting and, at times, the language does not make sense. 26 Also, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a 27 deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). 28 Plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved, and, as indicated 1 above, it must be at least facially plausible that an injury suffered by plaintiff is attributable to a 2 defendant. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link 3 or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 4 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 5 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 6 Plaintiff names Solano County as a defendant in his complaint. Plaintiff is informed that 7 municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of their employees. 8 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 585 at 691, 694 (1978). “Instead, it is when 9 execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose 10 edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government 11 as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Id. at 694. 12 Plaintiff presents a claim for medical malpractice arising under California law in his 13 complaint. Plaintiff is informed that before he may proceed on a claim arising under California 14 law in this court he must comply with the terms of the California Tort Claims Act, and then plead 15 compliance. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 910 et seq.; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d. 16 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). Complaints must present facts demonstrating compliance, rather than 17 simply conclusions suggesting as much. Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201, 209 18 (2007). 19 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 20 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 21 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 22 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 23 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 24 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 25 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 3 2. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed. 4 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 5 || complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 6 || Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket 7 || number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 8 | amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 9 || be dismissed. 10 | Dated: August 10, 2022 / ae □□ / a Ly a i CAROLYN K DELANEY 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 16 witt1042.14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 2:22-cv-01042

Filed Date: 8/11/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024