United States District Court, E.D. California
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a county inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
(ECF No. 2). Plaintiff has also filed a request for an
extension of time to reduce the size of his complaint (ECF
No. 7) as well as a “letter” with attachments
that is eighty-nine pages in length (ECF No. 8). The letter
appears to relate to a recent criminal matter in which
plaintiff was involved. (See generally id.). The
court addresses each document herein.
reasons stated below, the court will grant plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis. In addition,
plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed with leave to
amend with respect to his personal safety claim and related
conspiracy allegation as well as plaintiff's traffic stop
and vehicle impoundment claims. Plaintiff's motion for an
extension of time to file an amended complaint with respect
to these claims will be granted. Plaintiff will also be
directed to specifically link the remaining named defendants
to the claims to be amended or run the risk of having those
defendants eventually dismissed.
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 2).
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial
filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§ 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).
forma pauperis statute provides, “Notwithstanding any
filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,
the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
1983 “provides a cause of action for the deprivation of
any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States.” Wilder
v. Virginia Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 508 (1990)
(quoting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Section 1983 is not itself a
source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method
for vindicating federal rights conferred elsewhere.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two
essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and
(2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Ketchum v. Alameda
Cty., 811 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1987).
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed 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) (citing 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 to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. Facial
plausibility demands more than the mere possibility that a
defendant committed misconduct and, while factual allegations
are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.
Section 1983, a plaintiff bringing an individual capacity
claim must demonstrate that each defendant personally
participated in the deprivation of his rights. See Jones
v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There
must 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, 691, 695 (1978).
officials may not be held liable for the actions of their
subordinates under a theory of respondeat superior.
Monell, 436 U.S. at 691. Since a government official
cannot be held liable under a theory of vicarious liability
in § 1983 actions, plaintiff must plead sufficient facts
showing that the official has violated the Constitution
through his own individual actions by linking each named
defendant with some affirmative act or omission that
demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676.
may be imposed on supervisory defendants under § 1983
only if the supervisor: (1) personally participated in the
deprivation of constitutional rights or directed the
violations or (2) knew of the violations and failed to act to
prevent them. Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646
(9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045
(9th Cir. 1989). Defendants cannot be held liable for being
generally deficient in their supervisory duties.
Plaintiff's Allegations in Complaint
is an inmate housed at the Sacramento County Main Jail. In
his complaint, he names California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation parole agents Dell Farinas, Teresa Mata
and Gordon Lee; Sacramento Police Department employee Melvin
Cuckovich #903; Judge Trena Burger-Plavan and Judge R.
Seuyoshi; attorneys Michael Nelson and Charles Bauer; deputy
district attorneys Willam Satchel and Stephanie Maroun; the
towing company Sam Berri Tow; booking deputy N. Daniels #645,
and Brian Holida as defendants. (See ECF No. 1 at
1-2). Plaintiff's statement of the claim is not
completely clear. However, plaintiff appears to allege that
each of these defendants was involved in various improper
acts stemming from one initial incident: his arrest by the
Sacramento Police Department. (Id. at 2-3).
complaint, plaintiff's statement of the claim reads
Plaintiff is a Registered Process Server on duty at the time
in Sacramento, of officer(s) Cuckovich et.al, observation(s).
After advising them of my Right to Travel Officer Airoso
reached for his gun and I proceeded to safety, was detained
by CHP in Lodi, San Joaquin County, transferred to above
officers, automobile towed by Sam Berri without owner
consent, transported to Sac. Main Jail. Sexually assaulted by
staff during booking process N. Daniels et.al, on a warrant
for a previous case being shot by Sac Sheriff with jury
verdict of a misdemeanor and officers gave observation to DA
office as encroachment of branches to the court.
(ECF No. 1 at 3).
respect to the relief sought, plaintiff ...