Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01491/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01491-2/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LAMAR PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMEZCUA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-01491-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND 

DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 18)

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AS MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 22)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 22)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kevin Lamar Porter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On May 8, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed May 6, 

2024, and found that Plaintiff stated cognizable claims against: (1) Defendant Amezcua for 

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and a related state law claim for violation of the 

Bane Act; (2) Defendant Amezcua for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 

related state law claims for battery and violation of the Bane Act for slamming Plaintiff on the 

ground; and (3) Defendants Amezcua, Chao, and John Does 1–5 for excessive force in violation 

of the Eighth Amendment and related state law claims for battery and violation of the Bane Act 

for forcefully moving Plaintiff despite his complaints of severe pain. (ECF No. 18.) The Court 

further recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s 

failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Plaintiff was directed to file any 

Case 1:23-cv-01491-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/06/24 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

objections to the findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days. Following an 

extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the findings and recommendations on June 

3, 2024. (ECF No. 22.)

In his objections, Plaintiff argues that his Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 

indifference to medical care should be allowed to proceed. (Id.) Plaintiff states that he 

demonstrated in his first amended complaint that the defendants knew of Plaintiff’s medical 

emergency and severe back pain due to the complaints Plaintiff made, and the requests he made 

in his attempt to receive an examination for his medical emergency. If there is any doubt about 

the meaning of the words Plaintiff used to explain this claim, he should have the benefit of the 

doubt and as a pro se prisoner his pleadings should be construed liberally. Plaintiff requests that 

his claim be allowed to proceed or he be permitted to file a second amended complaint. (Id.)

While Plaintiff’s complaint must be construed liberally, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft 

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007)). Though detailed factual allegations are not required, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). As discussed in the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff’s 

first amended complaint provides only conclusory statements regarding his deliberate 

indifference to medical care claim. Further, Plaintiff was provided the applicable pleading 

standards, (see ECF No. 16, pp. 7–8), and was unable to cure this deficiency. Accordingly, the 

Court does not find it appropriate to allow Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim to proceed as 

currently pled.

However, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status and in an abundance of caution, the Court 

finds it appropriate to vacate the pending findings and recommendations and to grant Plaintiff 

leave to file a second amended complaint. The Court will screen the second amended complaint 

in due course to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for relief.

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

each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 

Case 1:23-cv-01491-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/06/24 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

U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise 

a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted).

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 

claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 

“buckshot” complaints). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 8, 2024, (ECF No. 18), are 

VACATED;

2. Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 22), are 

CONSTRUED as a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint;

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, (ECF No. 22), is 

GRANTED;

4. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form;

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

amended complaint; and

6. If Plaintiff fails to file a second amended complaint in compliance with this order, 

this action will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and 

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01491-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 06/06/24 Page 3 of 3