Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00451/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00451-3/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

GARY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SILVA, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00451-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO FILE LODGED AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AS SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 15)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Gary Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 3, 2015, the Court screened and dismissed 

Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended 

complaint on August 10, 2015. Before the Court could screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, 

Plaintiff submitted a proposed second amended complaint, which was lodged on September 3, 

2015. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 7
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

At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of 

course. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Therefore, his second amended complaint shall be filed, and it is 

now before the Court for screening. 

II. Screening Requirement and Standard

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[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, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 

(2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge 

unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 

342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially 

plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each 

named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 

(quotation marks omitted); Moss v. United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 

2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere 

consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 

129 S. Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

///

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 7
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

Further, under section 1983, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2009). 

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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

III. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Allegations

Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”), and is currently incarcerated at the Sierra Conservation Center (“SCC”) in 

Jamestown, California. He alleges that the events in the complaint occurred at SCC. Plaintiff 

brings this action against CCI Matlock, CCII Silva, and Head Librarian Garcia, all employed at 

SCC. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has been doing time in the custody of the CDCR for over twentyfive (25) years. Throughout his incarceration, Plaintiff states that he has always received “lower 

tier, lower bunk, no stairs, no frequent stairs, no working above ground” and he is “not even able 

to go upstairs to shower even when it’s empty.” (ECF No. 15, p. 3.) Plaintiff further alleges that 

the three defendants knew about this. However, Plaintiff was still forced to go up and down stairs 

while he attended school or visited the library. 

Plaintiff was also told twice by CCI Matlock that if he did not go to school he would be 

placed on C-Status, which Plaintiff did not want. CCII Silva did not say anything to Plaintiff until 

“five or six weeks after [Plaintiff] fell.” (ECF No. 15, p. 3.) Plaintiff was then called for his 

second annual, where CCII Silva stated Plaintiff will be taken out of school because he was not 

allowed to climb stairs. Plaintiff replied to CCII Silva that he had already received a G.E.D. 

fourteen months ago on September 6, 2012, which CCII Silva found to be accurate on the 

computer. Plaintiff “told [CCII Silva] and the other 3 people, ‘You’r[e] just looking to cover your 

ass.’ ”1(ECF No. 15, p. 4.) 

 

1

Plaintiff does not identify who is meant by “the other 3 people.” (ECF No. 15, p. 4). 

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff alleges that he wrote to Head Librarian Garcia in May 2010, explaining his 

problem that the library and school are upstairs. Head Librarian Garcia informed Plaintiff that he 

would still have to come to the library and check out books himself. Eleven (11) days after 

Plaintiff fell, he wrote to Head Librarian Garcia again, and she responded the exact same way. 

However, “six or seven days later,” Plaintiff was told that Head Librarian Garcia wanted to see 

him downstairs, where she told him she got bad information. Plaintiff reminded Head Librarian 

Garcia that he had written twice and was told twice he had to get books himself, and Garcia “sure 

changed her tone.” (ECF No. 15, p. 4.) 

Plaintiff alleges that CCI Matlock, CCII Silva, and Head Librarian Garcia all could have 

easily read his file, that this accident was very avoidable and it should never have happened. 

Plaintiff also informed CCI Matlock, CCI Silva, and Head Librarian Garcia about his condition, 

and they still forced him to use the stairs.2Plaintiff further alleges that after the fall he “was in 

such pain there is no words to describe it.” (ECF No. 15, p. 5.) Plaintiff states that today, his neck, 

left shoulder, and lower back still cause him great pain. 

Plaintiff seeks to be compensated monetarily. He also seeks to be transferred to Soledad 

and be single-celled, with restitution paid, to have all court costs paid, and to receive a new pair 

of glasses to replace ones that broke when he fell. 

IV. Discussion

A. Amended Complaint

As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, which no 

longer serves any function in the case. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Absent 

prior court approval, the amended pleading must be complete in itself without reference to any 

prior pleading. Local Rule 220. All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are 

not alleged in an amended complaint are waived. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 633 F.2d 811, 

814 (9th Cir. 1981). 

 

2

Plaintiff notes that he previously alleged claims against Defendants Jeffrey Beard and Warden 

Heidi Lackner, but he no longer does because he never actually told them about his condition. ECF No. 

15, p. 5. 

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Plaintiff’s disjointed second amended complaint repeats some of the allegations in his 

original complaint, but with less factual detail. For example, Plaintiff fails to explain how or 

when he fell. Plaintiff also does not include any of the exhibits he included with his original 

complaint. Neither exhibits nor detailed factual allegations are required, but Plaintiff must set 

forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S. Ct. at 1974).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements, do not suffice.” Id. Although Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 8(a), it must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s 

constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. 

In sum, this Court reminds Plaintiff that an amended complaint stands on its own. All 

relevant factual allegations must be included in the new document. No references may be made to 

prior complaints, claims, or other unattached documents.

B. Eighth Amendment Deliberate Indifference 

“The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment protects

prisoners not only from inhumane methods of punishment but also from inhumane conditions of

confinement.” Morgan v. Morgensen, 465 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2006). Prison officials

therefore have a “duty to ensure that prisoners are provided adequate shelter, food, clothing,

sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th

Cir.2000) (citations omitted). A prisoner claiming an Eighth Amendment violation must show

(1) that the deprivation he suffered was “objectively, sufficiently serious;” and (2) that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety in allowing the deprivation to take place.

Morgan, 465 F.3d at 1045, quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 

L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendants 

Matlock, Silva, and Garcia. Plaintiff does not specifically allege what each of these Defendants

was informed about regarding his limitation, infrequent stair use, and the consequences if he were

forced to go upstairs when visiting the library and attending school. Plaintiff previously alleged 

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 5 of 7
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

6

certain facts about the frequency of his school attendance (although not his library visits), but his 

second amended complaint provides no additional clarification or details about these matters. 

Plaintiff alleges that he informed Defendants of “his condition” but fails to allege that he 

informed them that condition would cause him to fall. Plaintiff does not allege that these 

defendants were aware of the risk and failed to act. If a prison official should have been aware of 

the risk, but was not, then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how 

severe the risk. Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir.2002). Overall, 

Plaintiff does not allege facts showing that these circumstances presented an objective, 

sufficiently serious risk to his personal safety that each or any of the named Defendants 

disregarded. 

In sum, Plaintiff’s allegations that were insufficient in his original complaint were merely 

reiterated in his second amended complaint, and he has still failed to state a cognizable deliberate 

indifference claim against Defendants Matlock, Silva, or Garcia. Plaintiff will be given one final 

opportunity to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable claim.

V. Conclusion and Order

For the above reasons, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an

opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies, to the extent he is able to 

do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his third amended complaint. 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what 

each defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678. 

Finally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, 

Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and 

must be “complete in and of itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local 

Rule 220. “All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an 

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 6 of 7
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

7

amended complaint are waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers Lybrand, 

644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1474. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall file Plaintiff’s amended complaint that was lodged on 

September 3, 2015 (ECF No. 15), as the second amended complaint; 

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff an amended complaint form; 

3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 

section 1983 claim; 

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order, or file a 

notice of voluntary dismissal;

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure 

to obey a court order and for failure to state a claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00451-BAM Document 19 Filed 06/10/16 Page 7 of 7