1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DESHAWN CAMPBELL, No. 2:24-CV-0119-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RUIZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18

. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 1. 19 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 20 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1915A(a). This provision also applies if the plaintiff was incarcerated at the time the action was 22 initiated even if the litigant was subsequently released from custody. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. 23 Dep’t of Corr.,

(9th Cir. 2017). The Court must dismiss a complaint or 24 portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can 25 be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 26 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that 27 complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 28 entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims must be stated simply, 1 concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

(9th Cir. 1996) (referring to 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice 3 of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone,

, 4 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 5 overt acts by specific defendants which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail 6 to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible for the Court to conduct the screening 7 required by law when the allegations are vague and conclusory. 8 9 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 10 Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Ruiz, a Correctional Officer at the 11 California Health Care Facility (CHCF); and (2) Gena Jones, the Warden at CHCF. See ECF No. 12 1, pgs. 1-2. Plaintiff alleges that, on August 26, 2023, he was injured when Defendant Ruiz drove 13 a staff cart in which Plaintiff and other inmates1 were riding into a brick wall. See id. at 3. 14 According to Plaintiff, Defendant Ruiz was oblivious to the fact that the cart could not fit through 15 a narrow opening and, as a result, the cart crashed into the wall. See id. Plaintiff claims 16 Defendant Ruiz’s conduct was intentional and that Ruiz acted with deliberate indifference to 17 inmate safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant 18 Jones, the prison warden, is liable for failing to properly train subordinate staff. See id. at 5. 19 20 II. DISCUSSION 21 Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a 22 plausible Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Ruiz. For the reasons discussed below, 23 however, Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Jones. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 1 One of whom is Aaron Earl Woods, who has filed a separate action arising from 28 this incident. See Woods v. Jones, et al., 2:23-cv-3053-DMC-P. 1 Supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of their 2 employees. See Taylor v. List,

(9th Cir. 1989) (holding that there is no 3 respondeat superior liability under § 1983). A supervisor is only liable for the constitutional 4 violations of subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations. See id. The 5 Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a supervisory defendant can be liable based on 6 knowledge and acquiescence in a subordinate’s unconstitutional conduct because government 7 officials, regardless of their title, can only be held liable under § 1983 for his or her own conduct 8 and not the conduct of others. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). Supervisory 9 personnel who implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of 10 constitutional rights and the moving force behind a constitutional violation may, however, be 11 liable even where such personnel do not overtly participate in the offensive act. See Redman v. 12 Cnty of San Diego,

(9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 13 When a defendant holds a supervisory position, the causal link between such 14 defendant and the claimed constitutional violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. 15 Stapley,

(9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld,

(9th Cir. 16 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of supervisory personnel in 17 civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents,

(9th 18 Cir. 1982). “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the 19 official’s own individual actions, has violated the constitution.” Iqbal, 662 U.S. at 676. 20 Here, Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jones appears to rest entirely on a 21 respondeat superior theory of liability. As discussed above, such a theory is not cognizable under 22 § 1983. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to amend to allege what, if any, specific 23 conduct on the part of Defendant Jones caused or contributed to a constitutional violation. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 3 || amending the complaint, Plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith,

} 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 5 || amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

, 6 || 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if Plaintiff amends the complaint, the Court cannot refer to the 7 || prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 8 | amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See

9 If Plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, Plaintiff must demonstrate how the 10 || conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. See 11 | Ellis v. Cassidy,

(9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 12 || each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 13 || between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto,

| 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy,

(9th Cir. 1978). 15 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 16 || complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the Court will issue findings and 17 || recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 18 || further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims. 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a first amended 20 || complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 21 22 | Dated: January 12, 2024 Co 23 DENNIS M. COTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28