Craver v. Hasty et al
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/28/2011 ORDERING that Pltf's 5 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Pltf to pay $350 filing fee. Claims against dft Hubbard are DISMISSED with leave to amend. Within 30 days, Pltf may amend his complaint. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state a potentially cognizable claim against dfts Hasty and Rayner. The Clerk shall provide to Pltf a blank summons, a copy of the 5/18/2011 complaint, two USM-285 forms and instructions. Within 30 days Pltf may return the attached Notice of Submission of Documents with the completed service docs. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Zignago, K.)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ANDRE CRAVER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
No. 2: 11-cv-1344 KJN P
J. HASTY, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
ORDER
/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner and is proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks
17
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis
18
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
20
21
22
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.
23
28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing
24
fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court
25
will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust
26
account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make
1
1
monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s
2
prison trust account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of
3
the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid
4
in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
5
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
6
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised
8
claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
9
granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
10
11
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
12
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28
13
(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an
14
indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
15
490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
16
pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
17
Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
18
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and
19
plain 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
22
(1957)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more
23
than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual
24
allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. However,
25
“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair
26
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551
2
1
U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. at 555) (citations and internal
2
quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept
3
as true the allegations of the complaint in question, id., and construe the pleading in the light
4
most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
5
The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint and, for the limited purposes of
6
§ 1915A screening, finds that it states a potentially cognizable claim against defendants Hasty
7
and Rayner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
8
9
10
11
For the reasons stated below, the court finds that the complaint does not state a
cognizable claim against defendant Hubbard. The claims against this defendant are hereby
dismissed with leave to amend.
The only allegations against defendant Hubbard are that plaintiff filed an
12
administrative appeal addressed to her and that as director of the California Department of
13
Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”), she allows her employees to operate outside the law.
14
Plaintiff’s allegation that he filed an administrative grievance addressed to
15
defendant Hubbard does not state a cognizable claim. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th
16
Cir. 2003) (there is no constitutional right to a prison administrative appeal or grievance system).
17
Plaintiff’s suggestion that defendant Hubbard is liable for the alleged conduct of
18
defendants Hasty and Raynor based on her position as Director of the CDCR does not state a
19
cognizable claim.
20
The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:
21
Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the
deprivation 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, or other proper proceeding for redress.
22
23
24
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the
25
actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See
26
Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978) (“Congress did not intend
3
1
§ 1983 liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)
2
(no affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or
3
policy demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’
4
another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an
5
affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is
6
legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v.
7
Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
8
9
Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the
actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named
10
defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed
11
constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862
12
(9th Cir. 1979) (no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v.
13
Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979) (no liability where
14
there is no evidence of personal participation). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the
15
involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board
16
of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of
17
personal participation is insufficient).
18
19
Plaintiff is attempting to base defendant Hubbard’s liability on the improper
theory of respondeat superior. Accordingly, the claims against defendant Hubbard are dismissed.
20
Plaintiff may proceed forthwith to serve defendants Hasty and Rayner and pursue
21
his claims against only those defendants, or he may delay serving any defendant and attempt to
22
state a cognizable claim against defendant Hubbard.
23
If plaintiff elects to attempt to amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim
24
against defendant Hubbard, he has thirty days so to do. He is not obligated to amend his
25
complaint.
26
////
4
1
If plaintiff elects to proceed forthwith against defendants Hasty and Rayner,
2
against whom he has stated a potentially cognizable claim for relief, then within thirty days he
3
must return materials for service of process enclosed herewith. If plaintiff proceeds with service
4
on those defendants, the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to dismissal of all
5
claims against defendant Hubbard without prejudice.
6
Plaintiff is advised that in an amended complaint he must clearly identify each
7
defendant and the action that defendant took that violated his constitutional rights. The court is
8
not required to review exhibits to determine what are plaintiff’s charging allegations as to each
9
named defendant. The charging allegations must be set forth in the amended complaint so
10
defendants have fair notice of the claims plaintiff is presenting.
11
Any amended complaint must show the federal court has jurisdiction, the action is
12
brought in the right place, and plaintiff is entitled to relief if plaintiff’s allegations are true. It
13
must contain a request for particular relief. Plaintiff must identify as a defendant only persons
14
who personally participated in a substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal constitutional
15
right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the
16
deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act or omits to
17
perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation). If plaintiff
18
contends he was the victim of a conspiracy, he must identify the participants and allege their
19
agreement to deprive him of a specific federal constitutional right.
20
In an amended complaint, the allegations must be set forth in numbered
21
paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a
22
single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate
23
transactions or occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P.
24
10(b).
25
26
The federal rules contemplate brevity. See Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara,
307 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “nearly all of the circuits have now disapproved
5
1
any heightened pleading standard in cases other than those governed by Rule 9(b)”); Fed. R. Civ.
2
P. 84; cf. Rule 9(b) (setting forth rare exceptions to simplified pleading). Plaintiff’s claims must
3
be set forth in short and plain terms, simply, concisely and directly. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
4
N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514 (2002) (“Rule 8(a) is the starting point of a simplified pleading system,
5
which was adopted to focus litigation on the merits of a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff
6
must not include any preambles, introductions, argument, speeches, explanations, stories,
7
griping, vouching, evidence, attempts to negate possible defenses, summaries, and the like.
8
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of § 1983
9
complaint for violation of Rule 8 after warning); see Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597
10
(1998) (reiterating that “firm application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is fully
11
warranted” in prisoner cases). The court (and defendant) should be able to read and understand
12
plaintiff’s pleading within minutes. McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80. A long, rambling pleading
13
including many defendants with unexplained, tenuous or implausible connection to the alleged
14
constitutional injury, or joining a series of unrelated claims against many defendants, very likely
15
will result in delaying the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an order dismissing
16
plaintiff’s action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 for violation of these instructions.
17
A district court must construe a pro se pleading “liberally” to determine if it states
18
a claim and, prior to dismissal, tell a plaintiff of deficiencies in his complaint and give plaintiff
19
an opportunity to cure them. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000).
20
While detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
21
cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129
22
S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
23
Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
24
is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
25
26
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility
6
1
standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for
more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.
Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility
and plausibility of entitlement to relief.
2
3
4
Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). Although legal conclusions can provide the
5
framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations, and are not entitled to
6
the assumption of truth. Id. at 1950.
7
An amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior
8
pleading. Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff
9
files an amended complaint, the original pleading is superseded.
10
By signing an amended complaint, plaintiff certifies he has made reasonable
11
inquiry and has evidentiary support for his allegations, and for violation of this rule the court may
12
impose sanctions sufficient to deter repetition by plaintiff or others. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
13
A prisoner may bring no § 1983 action until he has exhausted such administrative
14
remedies as are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The requirement is mandatory. Booth
15
v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 741 (2001). California prisoners or parolees may appeal “any
16
departmental decision, action, condition, or policy which they can demonstrate as having an
17
adverse effect upon their welfare.” Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, §§ 3084.1, et seq. An appeal must be
18
presented on a CDC form 602 that asks simply that the prisoner “describe the problem” and
19
“action requested.” Therefore, this court ordinarily will review only claims against prison
20
officials within the scope of the problem reported in a CDC form 602 or an interview or claims
21
that were or should have been uncovered in the review promised by the department. Plaintiff is
22
further admonished that by signing an amended complaint he certifies his claims are warranted
23
by existing law, including the law that he exhaust administrative remedies, and that for violation
24
of this rule plaintiff risks dismissal of his entire action, including his claim against Hasty and
25
Rayner.
26
////
7
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
3
2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action.
4
Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the
6
Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently
7
herewith.
8
3. Claims against defendant Hubbard are dismissed with leave to amend. Within
9
thirty days of service of this order, plaintiff may amend his complaint to attempt to state
10
cognizable claims against this defendant. Plaintiff is not obliged to amend his complaint.
11
4. The allegations in the pleading are sufficient to state a potentially cognizable
12
claim against defendants Hasty and Rayner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. With this order the Clerk
13
of the Court shall provide to plaintiff a blank summons, a copy of the pleading filed May 18,
14
2011, one USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on defendants Hasty and
15
Rayner. Within thirty days of service of this order plaintiff may return the attached Notice of
16
Submission of Documents with the completed summons, the completed USM-285 forms, and
17
one copy of the May 18, 2011 complaint. The court will transmit them to the United States
18
Marshal for service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Defendants Hasty and Rayner will
19
be required to respond to plaintiff’s allegations within the deadlines stated in Fed. R. Civ. P.
20
12(a)(1). If plaintiff chooses to proceed with service on these defendants, the court will construe
21
plaintiff’s election to proceed forthwith as consent to an order dismissing his defective claims
22
against defendant Hubbard without prejudice.
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
8
1
5. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this
2
action be dismissed.
3
DATED: June 28, 2011
4
5
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
cra1344.14
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
ANDRE CRAVER,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
No. 2: 11-cv-1344 KJN P
J. HASTY, et al.,
14
Defendants.
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
15
/
16
17
Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's
order filed
:
18
completed summons form
19
completed forms USM-285
20
copies of the
Amended Complaint
21
____
22
23
OR
24
25
Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of defendant
Hubbard without prejudice.
____ Plaintiff opts to file an amended complaint and delay service of process.
Dated:
Plaintiff
26
10
]]>
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?
