United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge.
MonJae Nykyle Haynesworth, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed and screened
Plaintiff's 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
June 6, 2019, to cure the deficiencies identified herein.
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant Meagan Foley
violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights by restricting
Plaintiff's telephone access. Dkt. 6. Plaintiff states he
has also been rotated into solitary confinement and has been
unable to contact his family. 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).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff states Defendant Foley placed
him on phone restrictions for no apparent reason. Dkt. 6, p.
3. He states he has also been on a rotation that includes
solitary confinement and has been unable to contact his
family for almost a year. Id. Plaintiff's
conclusory allegation that Defendant Foley violated his
rights by placing him on phone restriction is insufficient to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff
fails to explain, specifically, how Defendant Foley's
actions violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.
Further, Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant Foley was
involved in Plaintiff's placement in solitary confinement
or Plaintiff's inability to contact his family and
Plaintiff does not allege any wrongdoing by Defendant Gregory
Greer. Plaintiff has failed to adequately explain what
actions or inactions by Defendants resulted in the alleged
constitutional violations. Therefore, Plaintiff's vague
and conclusory allegations are insufficient to show
Defendant's 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
in the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names a state
court commissioner (judge) - Meagan Foley -- and a prosecutor
- Gregory Greer -- as Defendants. See Dkt. 6.
“State judges are absolutely immune from liability for
their judicial acts.” Briscoe v. LaHue, 460
U.S. 325, 334 (1983). This is true “even when such acts
are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have
been done maliciously or corruptly.” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1978). Prosecutors are
also entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages
under § 1983. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409,
427 (1976). Prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecutor who
“acts within his or her authority and in a
quasi-judicial capacity.” Asheleman v. Pope,
793 F.2d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Imbler,
424 U.S. at 430-31). “Such immunity applies even if it
leaves ‘the genuinely wronged defendant without civil
redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest
action deprives him of liberty.'” Id.
(quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427). Plaintiff
indicates he is challenging a court-issued restriction.
See Dkt. 6, p. 2. As Defendants Foley and Greer have
immunity, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against these
Defendants and claims against them cannot proceed.
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
suffered because of the individual's conduct. See
Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371-72, 377 (1976). Each
claim for relief must be simple, concise, and direct.
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 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 any previously filed 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 rights.
Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to
adequately address the issues raised herein on or before June
6, 2019, the undersigned will recommend ...