Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00061/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00061-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH B. GIBBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MACCOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0061 KJM CKD P

ORDER

Pursuant to the district court’s September 9, 2016 order, the court rescreens plaintiff’s 

April 17, 2015 amended complaint (ECF No. 22) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as follows.

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 a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

Case 2:15-cv-00061-KJM-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/17/17 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

As indicated in the court’s August 31, 2015 order and findings and recommendations, 

plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts in his amended complaint to proceed on claims arising under 

the Eighth Amendment against defendants Johnson and Prasinos for failure to protect plaintiff 

from violence and against defendant Prasinos for failure to provide plaintiff with adequate 

medical care. 

As to the other defendants and claims identified in plaintiff’s amended complaint, plaintiff 

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. First, plaintiff asserts all defendants 

retaliated against plaintiff for plaintiff’s use of the inmate grievance process in violation of the 

First Amendment. However, plaintiff fails to allege facts adequately linking any injury suffered 

by plaintiff to any grievance filed by him. While plaintiff alleges suffered negative events after 

he filed grievances, he fails to point to facts suggesting the filing of the grievance(s) caused a 

defendant to injure plaintiff.

Plaintiff also alleges that all defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by either 

being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs or by subjecting plaintiff to dangerous 

conditions of confinement. Plaintiff fails to point to any facts indicating that any defendant, other 

than defendant Prasinos, denied plaintiff medical treatment, caused plaintiff injury by not treating 

plaintiff, or caused plaintiff injury by providing him with the wrong treatment. As for subjecting 

plaintiff to dangerous conditions, or failing to protect plaintiff from such conditions, plaintiff does 

not allege sufficient specific facts indicating any defendant other than defendant Johnson and 

Prasinos took any action, or knowingly failed to act, resulting in injury to plaintiff. 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00061-KJM-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/17/17 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Finally, plaintiff alleges defendants violated his rights arising under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments. The court assumes plaintiff is referencing the “due process” clauses in 

each of those amendments. In any case, plaintiff fails to elaborate how he was denied any process 

due (e.g. a hearing) under the Constitution. 

At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed on the claims against 

defendants Johnson and Prasinos described above; or 2) he may attempt to cure the deficiencies 

with respect to other claims in an amended complaint. The court will grant plaintiff 30 days 

within which to file a second amended complaint. If plaintiff does not file a second amended 

complaint within 30 days, the court will direct defendant Johnson to file his response to plaintiff’s 

amended complaint (Prasinos has already responded) and will recommend that all other 

defendants be dismissed.

Plaintiff is reminded that if he elects to file a second amended complaint, the court cannot 

refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local 

Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior 

pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended 

complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 30 days within which to 

file a second amended complaint. If plaintiff elects not to file a second amended complaint 

within 30 days, the court will direct defendant Johnson to file a response to plaintiff’s amended 

complaint and recommend that all other defendants be dismissed. 

Dated: January 17, 2017

1

gibb0061.rs

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00061-KJM-CKD Document 46 Filed 01/17/17 Page 3 of 3