United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
Richard Creatura United States Magistrate Judge
David Henry Curry, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he has been
deprived of medications necessary to treat his chronic pain
and risk of stroke since being incarcerated with the
Washington Department of Corrections. However, he has not
alleged personal participation by any of the named
defendants. Having reviewed and screened plaintiff's
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to
serve plaintiff's complaint because plaintiff has yet to
plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. However, the
Court provides plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by
October 27, 2017, to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
has been incarcerated at the Pierce County Jail since January
of 2017. Dkt. 6 at 7. Upon entering jail, he had a number of
prescriptions, ranging from pain killers to medication to
treat his cholesterol and risk of stroke. Id. He
states that the medication is for chronic pain stemming from
a car accident, multiple surgeries from complications
associated with the car accident, and several other unrelated
medical conditions. Id. at 7-8. This claim arises
out of alleged withholding of several of those medications,
as well as enforced living conditions that aggravate his
medical conditions. Id. at 8-12.
Personal Participation by Defendants
alleges that various medical providers and prison officials
provided him with inadequate medical care or denied his
grievances seeking adequate medical care. Dkt. 6. However,
plaintiff does not explain any personal actions by the named
defendant. These allegations are insufficient to state a
claim under § 1983.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff must
allege facts showing how a defendant caused or personally
participated in causing the harm alleged in the complaint.
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988);
Arnold, 637 F.2d at 1355. A person subjects another
to a deprivation of a constitutional right when committing an
affirmative act, participating in another's affirmative
act, or failing to perform an act which is legally required.
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
Sweeping conclusory allegations against an official are
insufficient to state a claim for relief. Leer, 844
F.2d at 633. Further, a § 1983 suit cannot be based on
vicarious liability alone, but must allege the
defendant's own conduct violated the plaintiff's
civil rights. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S.
378, 385-90 (1989).
plaintiff has not shown personal participation by defendants.
After plaintiff's prayer for relief, plaintiff has
included a list of the events during which he alleges his
constitutional rights were violate. Dkt. 6 at 7-12. He lists
the medications he requires, the dates he felt symptoms of
his various medical issues, the dates medical staff allegedly
withheld medication from him or ignored his complaints, and
the living conditions aggravating his medical circumstance.
Id. However, none of his allegations explain how
defendants Naphcare, Chief Jackson, or Miguel Balderrama
personally participated in these alleged deprivations.
Leer, 844 F.2d at 633. Defendant Jonathon Slothower
is mentioned once (Dkt. 6 at 10), but plaintiff does not
clearly explain how defendant Slothower's actions harmed
plaintiff. Without demonstrating personal participation,
plaintiff cannot state a claim for which this Court can grant
relief. Insofar as plaintiff is arguing that defendants had
supervisory authority over the staff that caused his alleged
harm, supervisory liability alone is insufficient to state a
claim. Harris, 489 U.S. at 385-90. Again, plaintiff
must explain how defendants personally participated in the
alleged constitutional deprivation in order to effectively
state a claim for which relief can be granted.
plaintiff wishes to pursue this § 1983 action, he must
provide an amended complaint with a short, plain statement
explaining exactly what the named defendants did or failed to
do and how the actions violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights and caused him harm. Plaintiff may also
provide an amended complaint including additional defendants,
similarly including a short, plain statement explaining what
those additional defendants did or failed to do and how their
actions violated plaintiff's constitution rights.
Instructions to Plaintiff and the Clerk
the deficiencies described above, the Court will not serve
plaintiff's complaint. If plaintiff intends to pursue a
§ 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file
an amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he
must write a short, plain statement telling the Court: (1)
the constitutional right plaintiff believes was violated; (2)
the name or names of the person or persons who violated
the right; (3) exactly what each individual or
entity did or failed to do; (4) how the action or
inaction of each individual or entity is connected to the
violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights; and (5)
what specific injury plaintiff suffered because of the
individuals' conduct. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423
U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976).
shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by
the Court. The amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or
retyped in its entirety, it should be an original and not a
copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not
incorporate any part of the original complaint by reference.
The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
the original complaint, and not as a supplement. An amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint. Forsyth v.
Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997)
overruled in part on other grounds, Lacey v. Maricopa
County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, the
amended complaint must be complete in itself and all facts
and causes of action alleged in the original complaint that
are not alleged in the amended complaint are waived.
Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. The Court will screen the
amended complaint to determine whether it contains factual
allegations linking each defendant to the alleged violations
of plaintiff's rights. The Court will not authorize
service of the amended complaint on any defendant who is not
specifically linked to a violation of plaintiff's rights.
plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or
before October 27, 2017, the undersigned will