(PC) Alexander v. Kuppinger

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 5, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-02073
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHON DEJON ALEXANDER, No. 2:19-CV-2073-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 P. KUPPINGER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s 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). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or 22 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 23 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, 24 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain 25 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This 26 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 27 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the 28 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it 1 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege 2 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the 3 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is 4 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague 5 and conclusory. 6 7 I. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS 8 Plaintiff, currently an inmate at Kern Valley State Prison, complains of events 9 which occurred while he was incarcerated at California State Prison – Sacramento. See ECF No. 10 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) P. Kuppinger, a correctional officer; (2) 11 L. Watkins, a correctional officer; and (3) Abigail Gorrell, a prison nurse. See id. at 2. 12 According to plaintiff, defendants Kuppinger and Watkins slammed him to the wall and choked 13 him after plaintiff informed defendants he had a broken shoulder. See id. at 3. Plaintiff states he 14 was rendered unconscious as a result. See id. Plaintiff’s complaint contains no allegations 15 specific to defendant Gorrell. 16 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 The court finds plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim of excessive force in 19 violation of the Eighth Amendment as against defendants Kuppinger and Watkins. The 20 complaint does not, however, currently state any cognizable claims against defendant Gorrell. 21 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiff must allege an actual 22 connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and the alleged deprivations. See 23 Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A 24 person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of 25 § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform 26 an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” 27 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations 28 concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See 1 Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Rather, the plaintiff must set forth 2 specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in the alleged constitutional 3 deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 62. 4 Here, plaintiff’s complaint is devoid of any allegations specific to defendant 5 Gorrell. Plaintiff states that “the nurse” told the other defendants plaintiff was attempting to 6 receive medication at the time. ECF No. 1, pg. 3. This allegation, however, neither references 7 defendant Gorrell by name nor does it suggest any actional conduct by “the nurse.” As such, this 8 allegation is insufficient to demonstrate an actual connection between defendant Gorrell and a 9 constitutional violation. 10 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by 13 amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 14 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an 15 amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 16 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the 17 prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An 18 amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 19 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 20 conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See 21 Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how 22 each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection 23 between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 24 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 25 Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no amended 26 complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and 27 recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be dismissed, as well as such 28 further orders as are necessary for service of process as to the cognizable claims. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file a first amended 2 | complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order. 3 4 5 | Dated: November 5, 2019 Ssvcqo_ 6 DENNIS M. COTA 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28