The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 13). Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed for failing to satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that his claims be stated simply, concisely, and directly. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
Plaintiff claims he was "attacked and seriously injured by four Southern Hispanic gang members while they were being escorted" by defendant Fuizzotti. (Amended Complaint at 6). Reading his amended complaint broadly, Plaintiff claims defendant Fuizzotti failed to take proper precautions to protect him from attack by not conducting a weapons search of each inmate he was escorting and not utilizing mechanical restraints. He claims that defendants Sisto and Sequira knew of the risk of attack, based on previous inmate attacks and riots, and disregarded that risk by failing to properly train and supervise the correctional officers and failing to implement an adequate policy to ensure inmate safety. He also claims defendants Sisto and Sequira did not properly deal with the racial tension and violence at the prison, and failed to keep control of razors which the inmates can and did make into weapons. Finally, Plaintiff claims defendant Gums failed to protect him by not assigning more than one officer to escort the four inmates, when he also was aware of the danger and disregarded that risk.
Plaintiff makes no factual allegations against defendant Jackson. Plaintiff was previously advised that to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). He was also informed as to what was necessary to state a claim against a supervisory defendant. It appears Plaintiff is either unable or unwilling to state a claim against defendant Jackson. By separate findings and recommendations, the court will recommend defendant Jackson be dismissed from this action.
Plaintiff's first amended complaint otherwise appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, Plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until Plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The court authorizes service on the following defendant(s): Sisto, Sequira, Gums, and Fuizzotti.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the first amended complaint; and
3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:
a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. Four completed USM-285 form(s); and
d. Five copies of the endorsed first ...