United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
JONATHAN E. PARKS, Plaintiff,
RON HAYNES, et al., Defendant.
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.
Jonathan E. Parks, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the
Court declines to serve the Complaint but provides Plaintiff
leave to file an amended pleading by December 15, 2017, to
cure the deficiencies identified herein.
who is housed at the Washington State Penitentiary, filed
this § 1983 action. It appears Plaintiff's
allegations occurred when he was previously housed at the
Clallam Bay Corrections Center. He alleges that his civil
rights were violated when prison staff allegedly retaliated
against him for filing complaints, denying him showers,
proper clothing, food, and access to his legal papers and the
law library. Dkt. 4 at 14-15. He also claims he was denied
adequate food after going on a hunger strike for three days.
Id. at 14. Though he includes numerous kites and
grievances disbursed amongst his Complaint, he does not
explain how any particular person or persons violated his
rights. See Dkt. 4. He requests relief in the form
of monetary damages for his denial of food and additional
damages for “preventing access to the courts[, ] . . .
preventing contacting attorney[, ] . . . [and] misuse of the
[disciplinary] proceeding.” Id. at 26.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is
required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee
of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
Court must “dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious,
or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;
or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a violation of
rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal
statute, and (2) the violation was proximately caused by a
person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v.
Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first
step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to identify the
specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To
satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts
showing how individually named defendants caused, or
personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the
complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981).
Complaint suffers from deficiencies requiring dismissal if
not corrected in an amended complaint.
makes broad allegations that his constitutional rights were
violated when prison staff retaliated against him by
depriving him of food, clothing, and access to the courts. To
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 omitting 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.
Plaintiff has failed to allege the personal participation of
any Defendants. He has provided a list naming all Defendants.
Dkt. 4 at 2. However, he does not describe how any Defendants
actually deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional rights. He
alleges that he was deprived food, showers, clothing, and
access to the courts, and that the disciplinary process was
unlawfully used against him. Id. at 14-15. He
further alleges that his legal mail is being tampered with
and he has been denied access to legal phone calls as part of
a sanction. Id. at 15. Though these may amount to
allegations of constitutional violations, Plaintiff does not
explain how any particular Defendant contributed to these
alleged injuries. Rather, he relies on conclusory
allegations, stating broadly that his rights were violated.
Because Plaintiff has not alleged personal participation by
Defendants, he has not yet stated a claim under § 1983
for which relief can be granted. Therefore, the Court orders
Plaintiff to show cause or file an amended complaint
remedying the deficiencies noted herein.
Instruction to Plaintiff
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 of the person who
violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did
or failed to do; (4) how the action or inaction of the
individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff's
constitutional rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff
suffered because of the individual's conduct. See
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72 (1976). Further, if
Plaintiff intends to include grievances or kites with his
amended complaint, they should be attached to the end as
exhibits, not distributed throughout the body of his
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. The Court
will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it
contains factual allegations linking each defendant to the
alleged violations of Plaintiff's ...