United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was
referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Since plaintiff
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his request will be granted.
Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of
$350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a),
1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the
appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee
from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the
Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated
for monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust
account. These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate
agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
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. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. 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.
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 Atlantic 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. 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, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct.
2197, 2200 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
names one defendant, the Acting Warden of California Health
Care Facility. (ECF No. 1.) He alleges that, on July 6, 2016,
he fell off a wood transfer board used as a bridge to get
from his bed to his wheelchair. He fell onto the concrete
floor of his cell and was knocked unconscious. (Id.)
Plaintiff claims that prison staff were not trained to use
the board safely, and that no staff responded to the
emergency button when plaintiff pushed it for help.
court finds the allegations in plaintiff's complaint so
vague and conclusory that it 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. 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
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). A defendant may be held liable as a
supervisor under § 1983 if there exists “either
(1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional
deprivation; or (2) a sufficient causal connection between
the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional
violation.” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207
(9th Cir. 2011), citing Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d
642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989). A supervisor's own culpable
action or inaction in the training, supervision, or control
of his subordinates may establish supervisory liability.
Starr, 652 F.3d at 1208. However, allegations do not
state a cause of action against a supervisory defendant where
“there is no allegation of a specific policy
implemented by the Defendant or a specific event
or events instigated by the Defendant that led to”
the purportedly unconstitutional conduct. Hydrick v.
Hunter, 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis in
these reasons, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed.
The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended
complaint. If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint,
plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of
have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's
constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625
F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, plaintiff's amended
complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or
connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed
deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).
Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official
participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.
Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer
to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiffs amended
complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an
amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once
plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading
no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an
amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim
and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 2) is granted.
Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of
$350.00 for this action. All fees shall be collected and paid
in accordance with this court's order to the Director of
the California Department ...