(PC) Vasko v. Amador County Jail

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 SEAN MICHAEL VASKO, No. 2:24-cv-00162 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMADOR COUNTY JAIL STAFF, 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a county prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 and requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . 20 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). 21 Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). 22 Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 23 Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 24 §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee in 25 accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 26 the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 27 forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments 28 of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. These 1 payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the 2 amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1915(b)(2). 4 Screening Standards 5 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 6 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 7 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner raised claims that are legally 8 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 9 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 10 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 11 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 12 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 13 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, [14] 490 U.S. at 327 . The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 15 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 16 Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 17 2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 18 meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 19 1227. 20 Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 21 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 22 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 24 In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 25 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 26 sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 . 27 However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 28 defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 1 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555 , citations and internal 2 quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 3 true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93 , and construe the 4 pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 236 5 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984). 6 Discussion 7 Named as defendants are the doctors, physicians and nurses employed at the Amador 8 County Jail. Plaintiff’s complaint contains three claims for relief. 9 Failure to Adequately Identify/Link Defendants 10 In the complaint, plaintiff does not identify any of the doctors, physicians or nurses named 11 as defendants by name or other identifying information. The court cannot determine whether 12 plaintiff states potentially colorable claims for relief against defendants because plaintiff fails to 13 adequately identify defendants. For this reason, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 14 Plaintiff is also informed that the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed 15 provides as follows: 16 Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 17 of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 18 or other proper proceeding for redress. [19] 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 20 actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 21 Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 22 liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 23 affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 24 demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 25 to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative 26 act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally 27 required to do that causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 28 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 1 Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 2 their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 3 holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 4 violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979) 5 (no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 6 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert. 7 denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 8 official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 9 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 10 participation is insufficient). 11 If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall link the named defendants to the alleged 12 deprivations. 13 Claims on Behalf of Other Inmates 14 In the request for relief, plaintiff states that he seeks relief for violations of his rights and 15 the rights of other inmates in the Amador County Jail. (ECF No. 1 at 6.) 16 Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a 17 layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United States, 366 18 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the putative class 19 representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 , 1407 20 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 21 class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Martin v. 22 Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be construed as a 23 class action and instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff. 24 Claim One 25 In claim one, plaintiff alleges violation of his constitutional right to adequate medical care. 26 In particular, plaintiff alleges that after arriving at the Amador County Jail on November 27, 27 2023, his contact lenses dried because he was denied a contact container and solution. Plaintiff 28 alleges that he put in several requests, but they were denied. Plaintiff alleges that he is without 1 eyeglasses. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot see without contact lenses or eyeglasses. 2 Plaintiff also alleges that he has a ringing in his ears, major headaches and significant 3 hearing loss in his right ear due to a head on collision that apparently occurred prior to his 4 incarceration. Plaintiff alleges that the doctor at the jail twice told plaintiff that, “there is nothing 5 I can do for you about that.” 6 Claim one is dismissed because, as discussed above, plaintiff fails to adequately identify 7 the defendants. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall adequately identify the 8 defendants who allegedly denied his requests for contact cleaner, contact solution and 9 or/eyeglasses, and the defendant(s) who allegedly denied his requests for treatment for his head 10 injuries. 11 Claim Two 12 In claim two, plaintiff alleges that on November 27, 2023, he was taken into custody by an 13 Amador County Deputy Sheriff without probable cause. Plaintiff alleges that he did nothing to 14 violate his probation. Plaintiff alleges that he is being held without a release date with a no bail 15 warrant. Plaintiff alleges that he is confused and received no help from a court appointed lawyer. 16 Plaintiff alleges that he feels he is being kidnapped. 17 When a prisoner challenges the legality of his custody – either the fact of confinement or 18 the duration of confinement – and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to an 19 earlier or immediate release, such a challenge is cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas 20 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); see also 21 Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583 , 22 586 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Where a prisoner challenges the conditions of confinement, as 23 opposed to the fact or duration of confinement, his remedy lies in a civil rights action under 42 24 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531-32 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Skinner v. 25 Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 , 535 n. 13 (2011) (stating that “... when a prisoner’s claim would not 26 ‘necessarily spell speedier release,’ that claim does not lie at ‘the core of habeas corpus’ and may 27 be brought, if at all, under § 1983”). 28 //// 1 In claim two, plaintiff challenges the legality of his incarceration. Therefore, the claims 2 brought in claim two should be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus rather than a civil 3 rights action. Accordingly, claim two is dismissed. Plaintiff shall not include the claims raised in 4 claim two in an amended complaint. 5 Claim Three 6 In claim three, plaintiff challenges several conditions in the Amador County Jail. 7 Plaintiff alleges that there is no microphone or emergency button in the cells, which causes a 8 safety threat for inmates. Plaintiff alleges that the jail allows opposite sex correctional officers to 9 attend doctor or nurse visits, violating plaintiff’s right to confidentiality and the Eighth 10 Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that one inmate was told to drop his pants in front of a female 11 correctional officer. Plaintiff alleges that there are only two showers for 34 inmates. Plaintiff 12 alleges that there is a shower curtain, but it is in clear view of the officers’ office. 13 Claim three is dismissed because no defendants are linked to this claim. 14 The court also observes that in claim three, plaintiff may be raising claims on behalf of 15 other inmates. For example, plaintiff alleges that an inmate was told to drop his pants in front of 16 a female officer. As discussed above, plaintiff may not bring claims on behalf of other inmates. 17 See also Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) ([C]onstitutional 18 claims are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously.”). If plaintiff files an amended complaint, 19 he shall include claims based on alleged violations of his own constitutional rights. 20 Conclusion 21 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 22 about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See e.g., 23 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 24 each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). There can be no 25 liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a 26 defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo, 423 U.S. at 371 ; May v. Enomoto, 633 27 F.2d 164 , 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 28 participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266 , 1 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 2 In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 3 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 4 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 5 because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 6 v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 7 supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 8 omitted)). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any 9 function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim 10 and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 11 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 13 2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 14 is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 16 Amador County Sheriff filed concurrently herewith. 17 3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 18 4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 19 Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court: 20 a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and 21 b. An original of the Amended Complaint. 22 Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 24 also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 25 Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the dismissal of 26 this action. 27 //// 28 //// 1 || Dated: February 13, 2024 ( “oid : Ht | i &e la a 2 CAROLYNK.DELANEY 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [6] 7 || Vasko162.14 [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] SEAN MICHAEL VASKO, No. 2:24-cv-00162 KJN P [11] Plaintiff, [12] v. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT [13] AMADOR COUNTY JAIL STAFF, [14] Defendants. [15] 16 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s order 17 filed______________. 18 _____________ Amended Complaint DATED: [19] 20 ________________________________ Plaintiff