Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00023-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY STITH,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0023 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#37)

HARREL WATTS, et al., ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

TO DISMISS (#26)

Defendants.

___________________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter

was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72-302. 

 On September 18, 2006, Findings and Recommendations were entered,

recommending Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and the court dismiss this action for

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity

to file objections within ten days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

73-305, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 38 Filed 10/04/06 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

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

proper analysis. The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. However, it

appears the court has never given Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint. Generally, a

court must give a pro se incarcerated inmate notice of the complaint’s pleading deficiencies prior

to dismissal of an action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9 Cir. 2000) (if court determines th

that complaint fails to state claim, leave to amend may be granted to extent that complaint’s

deficiencies can be cured); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F. 2d 1446, 1448 (9 Cir. 1987) (prisoner must

th

be given notice of deficiencies and opportunity to amend prior to dismissing for failure to state a

claim). Further, when dismissing a complaint, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “leave to amend

should be granted unless the district court determines that the pleading could not possibly be

cured by the allegation of other facts.” Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th

Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted); Chang v. Chen, 80 F.3d 1293, 1296 (9 Cir. (9 th th

Cir. 1996). Here, the court cannot find that it would be impossible for Plaintiff to allege

additional facts that would state a claim. As such, the court will dismiss the complaint with

leave to amend.

Plaintiff is advised that any amended complaint that includes such claims must be based

upon a well-founded belief that a cognizable or arguable legal theory exists that would support

such a theory. Plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a

deprivation of Plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. Plaintiff must allege in specific terms

how each named defendant is involved. 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 (9 Cir. 1967). Therefore, in an amended th

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 38 Filed 10/04/06 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

be sufficiently alleged. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on

September 18, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; 

3. The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend; 

4. Plaintiff shall file any amended complaint within thirty days of this order’s

date of service. Any amended complaint shall contain the case number for this action and be

captioned “Amended Complaint.”

5. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to file an amended complaint will result in

this action’s dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 38 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 3