United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge.
Randolph Cyprian, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges his constitutional
rights were violated when he was sexually assaulted. However,
plaintiff has not provided any description of the alleged
violations except for conclusory statements that such
violations occurred. Having reviewed and screened
plaintiff's amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the Court declines to serve plaintiff's amended
complaint because plaintiff has yet to plead sufficient facts
to demonstrate that defendants violated his constitutional
rights. However, the Court provides plaintiff leave to file a
second amended pleading by May 15, 2019, to cure the
deficiencies identified herein.
initially filed his complaint in January 2019. Dkt. 1. On
February 22, 2019, the Court screened plaintiff's initial
complaint and found it deficient. Dkt. 6. The Court ordered
plaintiff to correct the deficiencies by March 22, 2019.
Id. Plaintiff filed the amended complaint on March
6, 2019. Dkt. 7.
amended complaint, plaintiff, who is currently housed at
Airway Heights Corrections Center (“AHCC”),
alleges that defendant Jo Hiles committed “custodial
sexual misconduct and continued to pressure acts of sexual
misconduct from plaintiff” while he was incarcerated
at Washington Correction Center (“WCC”). Dkt. 7
at 12. Although it is not entirely clear from the amended
complaint, it appears that plaintiff was placed in
segregation and then subsequently transferred to the Olympic
Correction Center (“OCC”) where he filed a Prison
Rape Elimination Act (“PREA”) report. Dkt. 7 at
12. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered emotional and physical
harm caused by defendants. Dkt. 7 at 12.
alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he
was (1) sexually assaulted by defendant Jo Hiles; (2) denied
access to the courts by defendant Germeau; (3) denied due
process by defendants DePew and Gersdorf; (4) intimidated and
harassed by defendants Hindershot, Davis, Bamer, Coleman,
Walker, Santos, Finch, Capolla, Riggs, Jennings, Germeau, and
Brown; and (5) retaliated against by defendants Santos and
Germeau Dkt. 7. Plaintiff contends that defendant Daniel
White is the superintendent of the WCC and that he placed
plaintiff in segregation when he should have investigated the
alleged sexual misconduct by defendant Hiles. Dkt. 7 at 11.
requests an injunction “from any further harm done by
the defendants, ” as well as $5 million in
“nominative and punitive” damages for the
“physical, mental and emotional damage done to
[plaintiff] by the defendants.” Dkt. 7 at 4.
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(“PLRA”), 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 sufficiently allege that: (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 step, 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).
first amended complaint does not sufficiently allege these
claims, which will result in dismissal of his case if not
corrected in a second amended complaint.
a prisoner may bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, he must first exhaust all available
administrative remedies. Under the PLRA,
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law,
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such ...