McDaughtery v. Arce

Background

Lesester D. McDaughtery, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Carlos Arce, identified as the warden of the California Training Facility. McDaughtery alleged that “staff” at the facility conspired to murder him and encouraged other prisoners to kill him by posting information on the internet identifying him as a pedophile. He did not identify the staff members who allegedly took those actions or name them as defendants. He named only Arce and did not allege that Arce personally took any action or failed to take any action related to the alleged violation.

Court’s analysis

The court screened the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a federal right was violated and that the violation was committed by a person acting under state authority. The court explained that a plaintiff must allege facts showing that each defendant was personally involved in the alleged civil-rights violation. Arce’s supervisory position alone was not enough to impose liability for actions allegedly taken by subordinates.

Because McDaughtery alleged no conduct or involvement by Arce, the court concluded that the complaint did not state a claim that could be judicially decided against him. The court allowed McDaughtery to amend by alleging conduct by Arce that caused a violation of his rights and/or naming other prison officials who allegedly violated his rights and describing their conduct.

Rulings

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It required any amended complaint to use the caption and civil case number specified in the order and to include the words “COURT-ORDERED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on the first page. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint and include all claims and allegations McDaughtery wants to pursue. The court stated that the case will be dismissed if he does not file an amended complaint within the designated time or if the amendment is insufficient.

The court also denied McDaughtery’s motion for appointment of counsel. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley stated that there is no right to appointed counsel in a civil case of this type, that the claims were not particularly complex, and that McDaughtery had not shown he was unable to pursue them at that time. The order resolved docket number 7.