Chen v. Neven et al
Filing
8
ORDER that Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date that this order is entered to submit his amended complaint. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
XUE BAO CHEN,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:12-cv-02163-MMD-PAL
Plaintiff,
SCREENING ORDER
v.
WARDEN NEVEN, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff, who is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of
14
Corrections, has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and
15
a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will defer ruling upon
16
the application (dkt. no. 1). The Court has reviewed the complaint. Plaintiff will need to
17
file an amended complaint.
18
When a “prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or
19
employee of a governmental entity,” the court must “identify cognizable claims or
20
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous,
21
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks
22
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
23
§ 1915A(b).
24
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
25
Allegations of a pro se complainant are held to less stringent standards than formal
26
pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam).
27
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” . . . [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require
28
28 U.S.C.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for
“detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned,
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. A pleading that offers
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
“naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” . . .
1
2
3
4
[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” 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 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.’”
5
6
7
8
9
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citations omitted).
10
In count I, plaintiff alleges that defendant Vidaurri beat him after a disagreement
11
about a blanket. Plaintiff has stated a claim that defendant Vidaurri used excessive
12
force.
13
In count II, plaintiff alleges that he informed his unidentified caseworker by a
14
request form that he and his cellmate disliked each other. Plaintiff further alleges that
15
after he sent his form, other inmates stole his property from his cell.
16
inmates attacked him, causing, among other injuries, the loss of four teeth. Plaintiff has
17
stated a claim that the unidentified caseworker was deliberately indifferent to a risk of
18
serious harm. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994). However, plaintiff
19
has not named the caseworker as a defendant. Plaintiff will need to correct that defect
20
in an amended complaint.
Plaintiff has named Warden Neven as a defendant.
21
Later, other
Defendant Neven is a
22
supervisor. “A supervisor may be liable if there exists either (1) his or her personal
23
involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection
24
between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.” Hansen v.
25
Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989).
26
involvement or other connection by defendant Neven. Plaintiff will need to correct that
27
defect in an amended complaint.
28
///
2
Plaintiff has not alleged any personal
1
In addition to correcting the above-noted defects, plaintiff will need to re-allege
2
count I in the amended complaint, or it will be waived. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565,
3
567 (9th Cir. 1987).
4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk shall send to plaintiff a civil rights
5
complaint form with instructions. Plaintiff will have thirty (30) days from the date that
6
this order is entered to submit his amended complaint, if he believes that he can correct
7
the noted deficiencies. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of
8
count II and defendant Neven from this action.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall clearly title the amended complaint
10
as such by placing the word “AMENDED” immediately above “Civil Rights Complaint
11
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983” on page 1 in the caption, and plaintiff shall place the
12
case number, 2:12-cv-02163-MMD-PAL, above the word “AMENDED.”
13
14
DATED THIS 25th day of February 2013.
15
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?