Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01446-2/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

DOMINIQUE MERRIMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PONDER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1446 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 27, 2019, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint 

with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.

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). Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 9) is before the court for screening. 

The court finds that this case may proceed against defendants Kentner, Joslin, Jacques and 

Ponder on a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment.. With respect to the other defendants

Case 2:19-cv-01446-WBS-CKD Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

2

identified in plaintiff’s amended complaint, the facts alleged fail to state actionable claims. 

Plaintiff has two options: 1) he may proceed on the claims described above; or 2) make an 

attempt to cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint with respect to the other defendants and 

claims in a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff decides to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff should consider that in 

order to state an actionable claim, plaintiff must demonstrate with specific allegations 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, in his second amended complaint, plaintiff 

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). Furthermore, 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). 

Finally, plaintiff is informed that if he elects to amend again the court cannot refer to a 

prior pleading in order to make the 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 a second amended complaint, 

the amended complaint no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second 

amended complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted 21 days 

within which to complete and return the attached form notifying the court whether he wants to 

proceed on claims arising under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Kentner, Joslin, 

Jacques and Ponder or whether he wishes to file a second amended complaint in an attempt to 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:19-cv-01446-WBS-CKD Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

3

cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint. If plaintiff does not return the form, this action 

will proceed on the claims described above. 

Dated: March 30, 2020

1

merri1446.op

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-01446-WBS-CKD Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 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

27

28

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIQUE MERRIMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. PONDER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1446 CKD P

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

HOW TO PROCEED

Check one:

_____ Plaintiff wants to proceed immediately on a claim arising under the Eighth Amendment 

against defendants Kentner, Joslin, Jacques and Ponder.

_____ Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint.

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:19-cv-01446-WBS-CKD Document 11 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 4