United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge.
Dasmon Taiwian Jones, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's Second Amended 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 May 17, 2019, to cure the deficiencies identified
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants
violated his rights by denying him access to the telephone,
requiring him to sleep on the floor, and housing him in
solitary confinement. Dkt. 8.
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).
Failure to State a Claim
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 Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
(9th Cir. 1988); Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
(9th Cir. 1981).
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was denied
access to the telephone and was forced to live in inhumane
conditions. Dkt. 8, p. 3. The Constitution does not mandate
comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane
prisons. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1970). Under the Eighth Amendment, prison officials are
required to provide prisoners with basic life necessities,
such as food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care,
and personal safety. Id.; Toussaint v.
McCarthy, 801 F.3d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986). To state
a claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement, a
plaintiff must allege a defendant's acts or omissions
deprived the inmate of “the minimal civilized measure
of life's necessities” and the defendant acted with
deliberate indifference to an excessive risk to inmate health
or safety. Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th
Cir. 1994) (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834);
see Estate of Ford v. Ramirez-Palmer, 301 F.3d 1043,
1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002). A prison official does not act with
deliberate indifference “unless the official knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837.
alleges he has had no contact with his family, had to sleep
on the floor, has been housed in solitary confinement, and
has not had access to hot water. Dkt. 8. He states these
conditions were not based on disciplinary actions.
Id. Plaintiff, however, fails to allege any
wrong-doing by Defendants or allege how, specifically,
Defendants' actions violated his constitutional rights.
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to adequately explain what
actions or inactions by Defendants resulted in the alleged
The prosecutor ask for these condition no phone contact with
any one but my lawyer since my arrest 18 months ago. The
judge granted these conditions. And Pierce County Jail and
Sgt. Caruso enforced these conditions.
Dkt. 8, p. 3 (errors in original). Plaintiff fails to explain
how Defendants' actions resulted in a violation of his
constitutional rights. Rather, Plaintiff simply complains
that he was placed on telephone restrictions. He does not
allege facts sufficient to show Defendants' conduct
violated his rights. Plaintiff's vague and conclusory
allegations are insufficient to show Defendants violated his
constitutional rights. 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).