United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
DeAngelo A. Green, proceeding pro se, 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 finds Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim but provides Plaintiff leave to file an
amended pleading by January 8, 2018, to cure the deficiencies
who is housed at Washington State Penitentiary, alleges his
constitutional rights were violated when Defendants Margaret
Gilbert and Michael Gleason negligently failed to protect
him. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff alleges inmate Matthew Holt put a
“hit” on Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff was
attacked and correctional employees failed to protect him
from the assault. Id.
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).
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 Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
(9th Cir. 1988); Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981). 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.
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).
Complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Margaret
Gilbert, Michael Gleason, John Doe 1-10, and Jane Doe 1-10.
Dkt. 3. Plaintiff fails to state the alleged wrongdoing of
any Defendant in this case. He provides detailed information
regarding his interactions with fellow inmates incarcerated
in Washington State correctional facilities. Id. He,
however, fails to explain what actions or inactions by
Defendants resulted in deliberate indifference to a serious
risk of harm. See id. Rather, Plaintiff provides
only a generalized statement alleging Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's needs by
negligently failing to protect him. Plaintiff's
conclusory allegations are insufficient to show Defendants
personally participated in the alleged constitutional
violations. See Jones v. Community Development
Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984) (vague and
mere conclusory allegations unsupported by facts are not
sufficient to state section 1983 claims).
Court notes Defendants Gilbert and Gleason hold supervisory
positions. See Dkt. 3. Plaintiff cannot bring §
1983 action against a supervisor on a theory that the
supervisor is liable for the acts of his or her subordinates.
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
Plaintiff wishes to pursue this § 1983 action, he must
provide a short, plain statement explaining exactly what each
Defendant did or failed to do and how the actions violated
Plaintiff's constitutional rights and caused him harm.
Instruction to Plaintiff and the Clerk
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