Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00158/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00158-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL E. MITCHUM,

Plaintiff,

vs.

YOLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, DIRECTOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:07-cv-00158 JKS DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking a further extension of sixty

days to file an amended complaint. Docket No. 18. 

In February 2007, a United States Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint because

it was too vague to determine if it stated a claim. Docket No. 9. Plaintiff was ordered to file an

amended complaint within thirty days. Id. After the time had elapsed the magistrate judge

recommended Plaintiff’s action be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint as instructed. 

Docket No. 13. Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations, essentially

requesting additional time because of difficult conditions in the Yolo County Jail. Docket No. 14. 

In March 2008, this Court, gave Plaintiff a final extension of thirty days to comply with the order

filed February 28, 2007. Docket No. 17. The Court explicitly warned Plaintiff that it would not

grant any further extensions. Id. 

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint over a year before this Court gave

Plaintiff a final thirty days to comply. Plaintiff has had ample time to research the legal bases of his

claims. Moreover, to satisfy the pleading requirements, Plaintiff need not engage in legal research

Case 2:07-cv-00158-JKS-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/28/08 Page 1 of 3
ORDER

2

or argument. As succinctly stated by the magistrate judge over one year ago, Plaintiff’s initial

complaint was deficient because it failed to allege facts:

The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint are so vague and conclusory that

the court is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to

state a claim for relief. Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts that would

establish an actual connection or link between the action of any of the defendants

and the deprivation he allegedly suffered. In order to state a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim plaintiff must allege facts such as the dates he sought care, the

defendants he saw on those specific occasions as well as the actions taken by

those defendants which resulted in him being denied adequate care. Because the

complaint contains no such factual allegations, it does not contain a short and

plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules

adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice to the

defendants and must allege facts that support the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.

1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts

which defendants engaged in that support his claims. Id. Because plaintiff has

failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint

must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended

complaint.

Docket No. 9 at 4-5. The magistrate judge also gave Plaintiff instructions on what to include should

he choose to file an amended complaint:

If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, plaintiff must

demonstrate how the conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of

plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d

227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. There

can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or

connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. 

Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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.

Id. at 5. As such, Plaintiff will not be given a further extension.

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-00158-JKS-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/28/08 Page 2 of 3
ORDER

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

at Docket No. 18 is DENIED.

Dated this the 27th day of March 2008.

 /s/ James K. Singleton, Jr. 

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR. 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:07-cv-00158-JKS-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/28/08 Page 3 of 3