James G. Stamos, Jr. v. Randy Grounds et al
Filing
19
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Oswald Parada. Based the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on or before August 30, 2013, why the in forma pauperis application should not be denied. If Plaintiff still wishes to pursue this action, he shall have until August 30, 2013, to file an amended Complaint, attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint. The amended Complaint shall be complete in itself and must remedy the deficiencies discussed herein. Failure to comply with the requi rements of this OSC will result in a recommendation thatthe in forma pauperis application be denied for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, for failure to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply with a court order.The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District Civil RightsComplaint form and a blank in forma pauperis application.IT IS SO ORDERED. (Attachments: # 1 CV Rights packet) (dc)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV 13-931-UA (OP)
Title
James George Stamos, Jr. v. Randy Grounds, et al.
Date
August 1, 2013
Oswald Parada, United States Magistrate Judge
Present: The
Honorable
D. Castellanos
N/A
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
I.
Proceedings
On April 3, 2013, James George Stamos, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) lodged for filing a Civil Rights
Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 14, 2013, an order was entered
transferring the matter to this District. (ECF No. 13.) On May 21, 2013, Plaintiff filed an
in forma pauperis application in order to proceed without payment of the full filing fee.
(ECF No. 15.)
In accordance with the mandate of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PLRA”),
the Court must examine a complaint for the purpose of determining whether the action is
frivolous or malicious fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief, regardless of
whether a prisoner prepays filing fees or requests to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A(a), (c); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Review under § 1915(e)
for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard applied in reviewing a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). A
complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons:
(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal
theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV 13-931-UA (OP)
Title
James George Stamos, Jr. v. Randy Grounds, et al.
Date
August 1, 2013
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why the in forma
pauperis application should not be denied.
II.
Discussion
A.
Summary of Plaintiff’s Allegations.
The named Defendants in the Complaint are as follows: (1) California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”); and (2) David B. Long, Warden of Ironwood
State Prison. Plaintiff does not indicate in what capacity Defendants are being sued.
Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
based on his placement in administrative segregation. He seeks damages. (Compl. at 23, 6.)
Plaintiff alleges that after his acquittal on a separate criminal offense, Defendant Long
“authorized a wrongful imprisonment inside of a prison by allowing officers to frame me
as I was out to court.” This resulted in Plaintiff being housed in administrative
segregation for approximately one year. (Id. at 3.)
B.
The Complaint Is Subject to Dismissal Based on Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall
not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against
one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any
Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. Immunity from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment further extends to suits by citizens against their own state. Holz v. Nenana
City Public School Dist., 347 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2003). The United States
Supreme Court has held that a suit against a state employee acting in his official capacity
is tantamount to a lawsuit against the state. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,
165-66, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 87 L. Ed. 2d 114 (1985). Furthermore, a § 1983 action may not
be maintained against official capacity defendants because “neither a State nor its
officials acting in their official capacities are ‘persons’ under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan
Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV 13-931-UA (OP)
Title
James George Stamos, Jr. v. Randy Grounds, et al.
Date
August 1, 2013
In the Complaint, Plaintiff does not indicate in what capacity Defendants are being sued.
However, he does seek damages. (Compl. at 2-3, 6.) To the extent Defendants are being
sued for damages in their official capacities, the Eleventh Amendment bars such claims.
C.
The Complaint Is Subject to Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim Based on
Respondeat Superior Liability.
Supervisory personnel are not individually liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat
superior or vicarious liability in the absence of a state law imposing such liability.
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 694-95, 98 S. Ct. 2018,
56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978); Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.
1992); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-46 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisory official
may be personally liable under § 1983 only if he or she was personally involved in the
constitutional deprivation, or if there was a sufficient causal connection between the
supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation. See Redman, 942 F.2d at
1446-47; Hansen, 885 F.2d at 646; Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
Vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a valid claim. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007).
In the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges after his acquittal on a separate criminal offense,
Defendant Long “authorized a wrongful imprisonment inside of a prison by allowing
officers to frame me as I was out to court.” This resulted in Plaintiff being housed in
administrative segregation for approximately one year. (Compl. at 3.) These conclusory
allegations are insufficient to establish that there was a constitutional violation, that
Defendant Long was personally involved in any such violation, or that there was a
sufficient causal connection between the alleged wrongful conduct and any constitutional
violation. See Redman, 942 F.2d at 1446-47. Thus, the Complaint is subject to dismissal
for failure to state a claim based on supervisory liability.
///
///
///
///
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
EDCV 13-931-UA (OP)
Title
James George Stamos, Jr. v. Randy Grounds, et al.
Date
August 1, 2013
III.
Conclusion
Based the foregoing, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause on or before August 30, 2013,
why the in forma pauperis application should not be denied. If Plaintiff still wishes to
pursue this action, he shall have until August 30, 2013, to file an amended Complaint,
attempting to cure the defects in the Complaint. The amended Complaint shall be
complete in itself and must remedy the deficiencies discussed herein.
Failure to comply with the requirements of this OSC will result in a recommendation that
the in forma pauperis application be denied for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted, for failure to prosecute, and/or for failure to comply with a court order.
The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a blank Central District Civil Rights
Complaint form and a blank in forma pauperis application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
cc: All Parties of Record
Initials of
Deputy Clerk
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
D.C.
Page 4 of 4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
