United States District Court, D. Oregon
ORDER TO DISMISS
Michael H. Simon United States District Judge.
an inmate at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution, brings
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
In a separate Order, the court has granted plaintiff leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. However, for the reasons
set forth below, plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e) (2) .
brings this case against a single defendant, Superintendent
Amsberry. He principally alleges that various prison
employees (who are not currently named as defendants)
retaliated and discriminated against him due to his sexual
orientation, and that Amsberry oversees these individuals.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and monetary relief.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the court is required to screen
prisoner complaints seeking relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee and must dismiss a complaint if
the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). In order to state a claim,
plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter which, when accepted as true, gives rise to a
plausible inference that defendants violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 554, 556-57 (2007). "Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
for failure to state a claim is proper if it appears beyond
doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claims that would entitle him to relief. Ortez v.
Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 806 (9th Cir. 1996);
Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273, 1274
(9th Cir. 1993) . Because plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the court construes his pleadings liberally and
affords him the benefit of any doubt. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Ortez, 88 F.3d
initial matter, plaintiff has properly utilized a standard
form pleading to initiate this case. The form pleading asks
plaintiff to "Enter full name of ALL defendant (s)
" in the caption of his Complaint so that the pleading
complies with appropriate procedural rules. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 10(a) (requiring that all defendants be named in
the caption of a complaint). The only defendant plaintiff
names is Superintendent Amsberry. Although it is evident from
the contents of his Complaint that plaintiff wishes to bring
this lawsuit against additional individuals, because those
individuals are not included in the caption of the Complaint,
they are not properly named as defendants.
addition, a plaintiff wishing to bring a cause of action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must demonstrate compliance
with the following factors: (1) a violation of rights
protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute
(2) proximately caused (3) by conduct of a person (4) acting
under color of state law. Crumpton v. Gates, 947
F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). In this case, plaintiff does
not identify a federal basis for any of his claims, but
instead appears to raise challenges primarily predicated upon
Oregon's Administrative Rules. In this respect, plaintiff
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
plaintiff s lone allegation against Superintendent Amsberry
is that she is "allowing" her prison personnel to
violate their codes of conduct and ethics because they
operate unprofessionally and abuse their positions of
authority. A plaintiff "must plead that each . . .
defendant, through the official's own individual actions,
has violated the Constitution." Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 676. A supervisor is liable for the constitutional
violation of his or her employee if the supervisor
participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the
violations and failed to act to prevent them.
Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045. Plaintiff fails to allege
that Amsberry specifically knew of, participated in, or
directed any federal violation. Instead, he appears to allege
that Amsberry is subject to liability due to her supervisory
role at his prison. Because there is no respondeat superior
liability under § 1983, Monell v. New York City
Dep't. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-94
(1978), he fails to state a claim against Amsberry.
on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's
Complaint (#2) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Should plaintiff wish to proceed with this action, he must
file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies noted above
within 30 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff is
advised that his amended complaint may not incorporate any
part of the original pleading by reference, ...