United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (DOC.
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action, Plaintiff alleges that, correctional officers walked
out of the dorm and allowed 30-35 Crip gang members in, who
beat him and another inmate. Because his allegations fail to
specifically link the officers named as defendants to his
factual allegations the Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to
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,
malicious, 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);
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If an action is
dismissed on one of these three bases, a strike is imposed
per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An inmate who has had three or
more prior actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, and has not alleged imminent danger of
serious physical injury does not qualify to proceed in
forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g);
Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir.
Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint
complains that in November or December of 2015, “the
C/O's walked out of the dorm and allowed” 30-35
Crip gang members to enter, who brutally beat him and another
inmate. Though Plaintiff names four correctional officers as
defendants -- C/O Speakman, C/O Rocha, C/O Mrs. K, C/O Jones
-- he fails to link any of them to his factual allegations
and show the role they played in this incident. However, he
may be able to correct the deficiencies in his pleading.
Thus, he is being given the pleading requirements, the
standards for deliberate indifference to his safety, and
leave to file a first amended complaint.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)
8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil
actions, with limited exceptions, " none of which
applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema
N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). "Such a statement must
simply give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512.
factual allegations are not required, but “[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), quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is
plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual
allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are
not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. Secret
Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009);
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557.
“plaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings
facts . . ., " Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d
949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners
are still construed liberally and are afforded the benefit of
any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th
Cir. 2010). However, "the liberal pleading standard . .
. applies only to a plaintiffs factual allegations, "
Neitze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989),
"a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint
may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not
initially pled, " Bruns v. Natl Credit Union
Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting
Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.
1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences, Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d
677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The “sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and
“facts that are ‘merely consistent with' a
defendant's liability” fall short of satisfying the
plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129
S.Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should
endeavor to make it as concise as possible. He should merely
state which of his constitutional rights he feels were
violated by each Defendant and its factual basis.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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. Department of Social Services, 436
U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode,423 U.S. 362
(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person
'subjects' another to the deprivation of a
constitutional right, within the meaning of section 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). In order to ...