United States District Court, N.D. California
KENNETH E. BAPTISTE, Plaintiff,
J. HATTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, DENYING EX
PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL RE:
DKT. NOS. 3, 4
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
an inmate at California Training Facility - Central
(“CTF”), filed this pro se civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a
separate order. His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the
Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Standard of Review
federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any
case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental
entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court
must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims
which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings
must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica
Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
“Specific facts are not necessary; the statement need
only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
. claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(citations omitted). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to
provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment]
to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two elements: (1) that a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and
(2) that the violation was committed by a person acting under
the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42,
names as defendants the following CTF prison officials:
Warden Hatton, Correctional Counselor II Martinez, Sr.
Psychologist Wynn, Chief of Mental Health Howlin, staff
psychologist DeAntoni, cook G. Tow, cook Hernandez, cook
Adams, senior hearing officer Lt. J. Marquez, and appeals
coordinator J. Truett.
construed, the complaint makes the following allegations. The
CDCR classification committee refused to re-instate
plaintiff's single-cell status in violation of his
procedural due process rights. CTF's Mental Health
Department violated his due process rights when they failed
to recommend to custody staff that double-celling was
inappropriate for plaintiff and contrary to the Coleman
Remedial Plan. There was an unspecified failure to meet work
and program expectations which resulted in a violation of
administrative rules, a violation of Cal. Health & Safety
Codes, a violation of 15 CCR 3035(g), (h), and either led to
plaintiff being diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C or was
problematic in part because plaintiff has chronic Hepatitis
C. Despite being on psychotropic medications, plaintiff was
forced to chop 600-1200 lbs of onions daily. This made
Plaintiff sick and nauseated; failed to meet work-program
expectations; violated plaintiff's due process rights;
and violated Cal. Health & Safety Codes and 15 CCR
3035(g), (h). Per protocol, plaintiff should never have been
assigned to culinary in the first place and he has an
infectious disease which means he is not medically cleared to
complaint will be dismissed with leave to amend for the
Section 1983 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that each
defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his
rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th
Cir.2002). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[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 state a claim for
relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each named
defendant with some affirmative act or omission that
demonstrates a violation of plaintiff's federal rights.
This requires the presentation of factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The
complaint makes general allegations and does not link any
individual defendant to the alleged violations. Accordingly,
the complaint fails to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim
against any of the named defendants. However, the Court will
grant plaintiff leave to amend so that he can correct this
amended complaint, Plaintiff should specifically identify
what each named defendant did or did not do with regard to
each separate claim. Sweeping conclusory allegations will not
suffice. Plaintiff should not refer to the defendants as a
group (e.g., “the defendants”); rather, he should
identify each involved defendant by name and link each of
them to his claims by explaining what each involved defendant
did or failed to do that caused a violation of his rights.
See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir.
1988). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action is insufficient to state a claim. Twombly,
550 U.S. ...