Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-01621-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

TAYLOR A. BEESON,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-1621 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil action against employees of 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons. On September 1, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with 

leave to amend. Plaintiff has now 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). 

Having conducted the required screening the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on a 

claim for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and a claim for retaliation 

for protected conduct arising under the First Amendment against defendant Lt. Birtwell.

At this point, plaintiff has two options: he can proceed immediately on the claims

identified above or he can file a second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies 

with respect to the other defendants identified in his amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to proceed immediately on the claims identified above, the court will 

Case 2:23-cv-01621-DJC-CKD Document 15 Filed 05/20/24 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

construe this as a request to voluntarily dismiss any other claims and defendants pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In plaintiff’s amended complaint, he makes no allegations against the people he identifies 

as defendants aside from defendant Birtwell. If plaintiff chooses to file a 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 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).

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

1. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the claims described herein. 

Alternatively, plaintiff may choose to file a second amended complaint.

2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 

attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 

complaint or whether he wants time to file a second amended complaint.

3. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 

court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient claims and proceed only on the 

cognizable claims identified above. 

Dated: May 20, 2024

1

bees1621.option

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-01621-DJC-CKD Document 15 Filed 05/20/24 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAYLOR A. BEESON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 2:23-cv-1621 CKD P

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

Check only one option:

_____ 1. Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the following claims:

Claim 1, use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against defendant

Lt. Birtwell; and

Claim 2, a violation of the First Amendment in retaliation for protected conduct against 

Lt. Birtwell.

OR

_____ 2. Plaintiff wants time to file a first amended complaint.

DATED: __________ ____________________ 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:23-cv-01621-DJC-CKD Document 15 Filed 05/20/24 Page 3 of 3