Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01108/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01108-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEXTER S. C. FARLOUGH,

Plaintiff, CV F 07 1108 AWI WMW PC

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

 WITH LEAVE TO

 FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

(THIRTY DAY DEADLINE)

NICHOLAS DAWSON, 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).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Avenal State Prison, brings this civil

rights action against defendant correctional officials of the CDCR.

Plaintiff’s claims in this complaint relate to the adequacy of legal materials applied to

prisoners. Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of other similarly situate prisoners. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to bring this as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23.

 Plaintiff, however, is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established

Case 1:07-cv-01108-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 07/07/08 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

2

that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See McShane v. United

States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute when, as here, the

putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine v. Williams, 509

F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot "fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class," as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). See Martin v. Middendorf, 420

F.Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). This action, therefore, will not be construed as a class action and

instead will be construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff.

Because Plaintiff has failed to allege facts indicating that a named defendant engaged in

conduct that deprived Plaintiff of a protected interest, the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff

will, however, be granted leave to file an amended complaint.

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.

1978).

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). 

Case 1:07-cv-01108-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 07/07/08 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

3

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 complaint is dismissed; and

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

first 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 "First Amended Complaint." Failure to

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

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01108-AWI-SKO Document 9 Filed 07/07/08 Page 3 of 3