Plaintiff is an inmate at the Solano County Jail proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court screened plaintiff's original complaint and, by order entered July 10, 2012, that complaint was dismissed with leave granted to file an amended complaint. Nonetheless, plaintiff has now filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint along with an amended complaint.
Again, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 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. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than "naked assertions," "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. "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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must accept the allegations as true, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
The Civil Rights Act under which this action is filed provides as follows: 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.
42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). "A person 'subjects' another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made." Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
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 defendant holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
II. PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff's amended complaint is similar to his original complaint that the court dismissed with leave to amend. First, plaintiff alleges that John Doe # 1 and John Doe # 2 refused to grant him recreational time at the Solano County Jail on May 21, 2012. (See Dkt. No. 9 at p. 3.) Plaintiff alludes to the fact that he has been deprived of exercise at the jail for the last two to three months "on the yard." (See id. at p. 5.) He also states that he has been confined in segregated housing for the past five months. (See id.) Plaintiff claims that he requested an inmate grievance form from defendants Snyder, Amicucci and Espinoza to grieve this issue, but they refused to provide him with one. (See id. at p. 3.) Nevertheless, plaintiff admits that he received a grievance form from "Herndon" who, the court assumed, is another deputy assigned to the jail. (See id.) Plaintiff also claims that he was never given a tracking sheet from defendant Snyder after he filed his prison grievance. (See id.)
Next, Plaintiff asserts that male deputies at the jail used obscenities and played music over his call box on May 29, 2012, but when he tried to grieve this issue, he was met by resistence from defendants Snyder, Amicucci, Espinoza, John Doe # 1 and John Doe # 2. (See id. at p. 4.)
Plaintiff also asserts that the wing of the jail to which he is assigned is without a television and that his cell has been searched by deputies several times. Finally, plaintiff claims that his hygiene products were missing after two of these cell searches. (See Dkt. No. 9 at p. 5.)
The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint remain vague and conclusory such that the court is unable to determine whether the amended complaint is frivolous and/or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. See Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Plaintiff's amended complaint ...