Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01560/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01560-17/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO LUIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1560 LJO WMW PC

vs. ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 WITH LEAVE TO FILE

 A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

(THIRTY DAY DEADLINE)

DWIGHT WINSLOW, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding prose in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

On June 7, 2007, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that

Plaintiff be denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

Specifically, Plaintiff has suffered three dismissals that qualify as “strikes” under section

1915(g). Plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 

On September 28, 2007, an order was entered, vacating the findings and

recommendations and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The order noted that,

pursuant to section 1915(g), Plaintiff may not proceed in forma pauperis on his claim for

damages, but he may proceed on his claims for injunctive relief. On January 25, 2008, Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 75 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 4
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

2

filed a second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint contains conclusory allegations regarding Plaintiff’s

medical care. Plaintiff’s statement of claim is rambling, and references treatment to Plaintiff’s

shoulder. The only specific conduct charged to any defendant is plaintiff’s allegation that “Dr.

Allen by deliberate indifference refused to acknowledge to treat foreseen dislocated shoulder as

was witnessed by calif. Prison Focus as I shown him.” Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit copies of

his medical record.

Plaintiff can not state a claim by leveling conclusory allegations and submitting copies of

medical records. Plaintiff must identify specific defendants, and charge each defendant with

specific conduct that states a claim for relief. In this case, this action may only proceed on

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief.

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an obligation to provide medical care

to those who are incarcerated. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9 Cir. 2000). “In th

order to violate the Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment, there

must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether

medical care, or lack thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must

examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. Second, a court must

determine whether “officials intentionally interfered with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id.

at 1132.

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's second amended complaint to be vague and

conclusory. The court has determined that the complaint 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 and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 75 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff's claim. 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.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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). 

In addition, 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. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Third Amended Complaint." Failure to

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 75 Filed 04/17/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

file an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01560-LJO -WMW Document 75 Filed 04/17/08 Page 4 of 4