Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00163-4/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

MIGUEL BELMONTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. PALOMARES, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-00163-CKD-P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

I. Screening Standard

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

Case 2:19-cv-00163-TLN-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 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

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

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 

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, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 

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

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

II. Factual and Procedural History

The court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to 

amend on March 21, 2019 because the challenges to his disciplinary conviction were barred by 

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 11. In this same order, plaintiff was 

cautioned that an amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any 

additional pleading. ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Local Rule 220).

Following an extension of time, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 11, 

2019. ECF No. 17. Since that date, plaintiff has filed seven additional pleadings which he 

captions as “Supplement[s]” to his second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 20-23, 25-27. 

////

////

////

Case 2:19-cv-00163-TLN-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 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

III. Analysis

The court is unable to screen plaintiff’s second amended complaint due to the number of

subsequent filings by plaintiff in which he seeks to add claims or otherwise amend his pending 

complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff 

will be granted one last opportunity to file a single amended complaint that lists all claims and

defendants which plaintiff wishes to pursue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff is further

advised against supplementing any third amended complaint with additional “notices” or

“supplements” unless he files a formal motion asking to do so, and the court grants his motion.

See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(d). The court will strike any “supplements” filed in violation of this court 

order.

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, in his 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 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 17) is dismissed. 

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

Case 2:19-cv-00163-TLN-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 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

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 “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 

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

be dismissed.

Dated: January 13, 2020

12/belm0163.2ndamended.docx

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00163-TLN-CKD Document 29 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 4