(PC) Latifi v. Cooper ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM LATIFI, No. 2: 23-cv-0665 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JIM COOPER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a county prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 19 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 20 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 21 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 22 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 23 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 24 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 25 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 26 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 27 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 28 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 1 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(b)(2). 3 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 4 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 5 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 6 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 7 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 8 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 9 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 10 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 11 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 12 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 13 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 14 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 15 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 16 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 17 1227. 18 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 19 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 20 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 21 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 22 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 23 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 24 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 25 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 26 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 27 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 28 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 1 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 2 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 3 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 4 Named as defendants are Sacramento County Sheriff Cooper, Sacramento County 5 Medical, the Rio Consumnes Correctional Center (“RCCC”) and Sacramento County. Plaintiff 6 alleges that defendant Sacramento County has been unable to give plaintiff vital surgery, putting 7 plaintiff’s life in danger. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Sacramento County has been unable 8 to provide plaintiff with religious accommodations for plaintiff’s religious diet and religious 9 practices for Ramadan. 10 An agency or department of a municipal entity is not a proper defendant under Section 11 1983. Vance v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996). Rather, the county 12 itself is the proper defendant. Id. Accordingly, defendants Sacramento County Medical and 13 RCCC are dismissed as improperly named defendants. 14 Turning to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Sacramento County, “[a] municipality 15 cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor-or, in other words, a municipality 16 cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. 17 Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691(1978). Therefore, counties and municipalities may be sued under § 18 1983 only upon a showing that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional tort. Id. at 19 691. 20 “In order to state a claim under Monell, a party must: (1) identify the challenged policy or 21 custom; (2) explain how the policy or custom is deficient; (3) explain how the policy or custom 22 caused the plaintiff harm; and (4) reflect how the policy or custom amounted to deliberate 23 indifference, i.e. show how the deficiency involved was obvious and the constitutional injury was 24 likely to occur.” Harvey v. City of S. Lake Tahoe, 2012 WL 1232420, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 25 2012) (citing Young v. City of Visalia, 687 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1148 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “In other 26 words, a plaintiff must plead (1) that the plaintiff ‘possessed a constitutional right of which [he or 27 she] was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to 28 deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and, (4) that the policy is the moving 1 force behind the constitutional violation.’” Bradley v. County of San Joaquin, 2018 WL 2 4026996, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2018) (quoting Plumeau v. Sch. Dist. No. 40 Cnty. of 3 Yamhill, 130 F.3d 432, 438 (9th Cir. 1997)). 4 Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied surgery or religious accommodations pursuant 5 to a policy of Sacramento County. For this reason, plaintiff’s claims against defendant 6 Sacramento County are dismissed. If plaintiff names Sacramento County as a defendant in an 7 amended complaint, plaintiff shall address the legal standards set forth above. 8 Turning to plaintiff’s claims against defendant Cooper, the Civil Rights Act under which 9 this action was filed provides as follows: 10 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 11 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, 12 or other proper proceeding for redress. 13 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 14 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 15 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 16 liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 17 affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 18 demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 19 to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative 20 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally 21 required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 22 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 23 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 24 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 25 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 26 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979) 27 (no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 28 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert. 1 denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 2 official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 3 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 4 participation is insufficient). 5 Plaintiff does not allege defendant Cooper’s involvement in the alleged deprivations. 6 Plaintiff does not allege, for example, that defendant Cooper denied his request for surgery and/or 7 religious accommodations. Plaintiff also fails to describe the surgery he needs. Plaintiff also fails 8 to describe the special diet and the specific accommodations for Ramadan he was denied. 9 Without this information, the undersigned cannot determine whether plaintiff states a potentially 10 colorable claim against defendant Cooper. Accordingly, the claims against defendant Cooper are 11 dismissed. 12 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 13 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 14 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 15 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 16 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 17 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 18 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 19 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 20 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 21 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 22 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 23 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 24 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 25 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 26 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 27 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 28 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 1 | and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 2 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 4 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 5 || is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 7 || Sacramento County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 8 3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 9 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 10 || Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 11 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 12 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 13 | Plaintiff's amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 14 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 15 || also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 16 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 17 || dismissal of this action. 18 || Dated: April 26, 2023 " Aectl Aharon 20 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 Lat605.14 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KAREEM LATIFI, No. 2: 23-cv-0665 KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 13 JIM COOPER, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: 19 20 ________________________________ Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28