Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07002/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07002-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

' 

FILED 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DAVID ALLEN FULLERTON, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

GARY D. MAYNARD; JERRY ) 

JOHNSON; J. ROBERT DILLE; ) 

TOM LOVELACE ; H. N. II SONNY II ) 

SCOTT; RON WARD; JOHN GRUBBS; ) 

ESTER MATTHEWS; DANNY ) 

ALEXANDER; GLENN E. MOODY; ) 

JOHN PRESTON MCDANIELS; STAN ) 

WARE; DELORIS BRIGANCE; TOM ) 

GRACE; "KITTY" LE BEAU; ) 

RICHARD MORTON; CARMEN ADAMS; ) 

DAVID BEAL; and J. HATHAWAY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-7002 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-172-S) 

( E. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff-appellant David Fullerton appeals a district court 

order dismissing his civil rights action brought under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983 for lack of proper venue. Fullerton raises three separate 

issues on appeal. He first contends that the district court erred 

in holding that his amended complaint did not reference or 

incorporate allegations contained in his original complaint. 

Second, Fullerton contends that the district court erred in 

denying his motion to withdraw his amended complaint. Finally, 

Fullerton argues that the district court erred in dismissing the 

action for lack of proper venue. 

Fullerton filed an action in United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Oklahoma pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

alleging officials at the Jackie Brannon Correctional Center 

(JBCC) in McAlester, Oklahoma were deliberately indifferent to his 

serious medical needs. McAlester is located in the Eastern 

District of Oklahoma. The complaint was filed on April 18, 1990. 

The district court ordered a Special Report on April 24, 1990 and 

stayed the action until its completion. 

On April 13, 1990, Fullerton was transferred to the Clara 

Waters Community Treatment Center (CWCTC) in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma. Oklahoma City is located in the Western District of 

Oklahoma. On May 11, 1990, Fullerton filed an amended complaint 

asserting several claims not previously asserted in his original 

complaint. Among these claims, Fullerton asserts he was 

transferred from JBCC to CWCTC in retaliation for filing a civil 

rights lawsuit and that the transfer denied and delayed his access 

to the courts. The amended complaint names four defendants not 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 2 
named in the original complaint and refers to these defendants as 

"additional defendants." Copies of the amended complaint were not 

served on the defendants named in the original complaint. 

Although the defendants named in the amended complaint were served 

with copies of that document, they were not served with the 

original complaint. 

On July 31, 1990, Fullerton filed a motion to withdraw his 

amended complaint. In this motion, he explained that he had filed 

the amended complaint intending to include additional violations 

of his constitutional rights and present newly discovered evidence 

supporting his original allegations. 

On December 5, 1990, the district court entered an order 

dismissing Fullerton's action based on improper venue. The court 

stated that "an amended complaint supersedes and replaces the 

original complaint and renders it a nullity, unless the amended 

complaint specifically refers to or adopts the earlier pleading." 

The court determined Fullerton's amended complaint "did not 

reference or incorporate those allegations contained in the 

original complaint" and thus these claims had been abandoned by 

Fullerton. Based on his reading of the amended complaint, the 

district judge determined "all defendants reside in the Western 

District of Oklahoma and the asserted claims arose in the Western 

District of Oklahoma" and thus, according to the general venue 

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue was improper in the 

Eastern District of Oklahoma. In this order, the district court 

also denied Fullerton's motion to withdraw his amended complaint. 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 3 
It is a well-established general rule that an amended 

complaint, filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 

15(a), supersedes the complaint it modifies and renders the prior 

complaint of no legal effect. See Boelens Y..!.. Redman Homes, Inc., 

759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1985); Cameron Y..!.. Fogarty, 705 F.2d 

676 (2d Cir. 1983); London Y..!.. Coopers~ Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9th 

Cir. 1981); 6 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and 

Procedure§ 1476 (1990). However, pursuant to Rule l0(c), 

specific allegations of the prior complaint may be referenced or 

incorporated by the amended complaint, but only if reference to 

allegations in the prior complaint is direct and specific. King 

Y..!.. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987); Aktiebolaget StilleWerner Y..!.. Stille-Scanlan, Inc., 1 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 1940); 5 C. 

Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1326 (1990). 

While Fullerton, a prose plaintiff, is entitled to have his 

pleadings construed liberally, he nevertheless is subject to the 

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. King, 

814 F.2d at 567. Although Fullerton's amended complaint mentions 

the existence of a prior original complaint and refers generally 

to the "informal relief" sought in that complaint, the amended 

complaint makes no explicit and direct reference to specific 

allegations of the original complaint. Therefore, we agree with 

the district court's holding that the amended complaint supersedes 

allegations of the original complaint. 

We now address the district court's denial of Fullerton's 

motion to withdraw his amended complaint. The decision whether to 

allow a litigant to withdraw a pleading is within the district 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 4 
court's sound discretion. Cf. Leaseamerica Corp. Y.!.. Eckel, 710 

F.2d 1470, 1473 (10th Cir. 1983) (leave to amend a complaint is 

within the sound discretion of the trial court). After the 

district court granted leave for Fullerton to amend his original 

complaint, investigations related to the Special Report were 

revised to address only allegations of the amended complaint. In 

its order denying Fullerton's motion to withdraw his complaint, 

the district court noted that to allow Fullerton to withdraw his 

amended complaint would require a further revision of the Special 

Report investigations. Therefore, the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Fullerton's motion. 

Finally, we review de novo the district court's legal 

determination that venue is not proper in the Eastern District of 

Oklahoma. In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263, 1266 (10th 

Cir. 1988) (questions of law reviewed de novo by the appellate 

court). Because the amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint, proper venue in the Eastern District of Oklahoma must 

be established from facts alleged in the amended complaint. Based 

on a liberal construction of Fullerton's amended complaint, Count 

II of that complaint appears to allege facts sufficient to state a 

claim that arose at JBCC in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. In 

Count II, Fullerton alleges that he was told of his transfer from 

JBCC to CWCTC shortly after requesting funds necessary to bring 

this civil rights action. He further alleges that the transfer 

was in retaliation for his intent to file the civil rights action 

and was intended to "deny and delay access to the courts." 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 5 
Several courts have recognized a prisoner's claim under 

42 u.s.c. § 1983 for an interprison transfer ordered in 

retaliation for the prisoner's exercise of the constitutional 

right to petition the courts. Rizzo~ Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 

(9th Cir. 1985); McDonald~ Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 

1979); Furtado~ Bishop, 604 F.2d 80, 89 (1st Cir. 1979); Garland 

~ Polley, 594 F.2d 1220, 1222-23 (8th Cir. 1979). Count II of 

appellant's amended complaint states a retaliatory transfer claim 

that arose at JBCC, making venue proper in the Eastern District of 

Oklahoma. 1 However, we are not satisfied from our review of the 

record that Fullerton's alleged retaliatory transfer is properly 

1 In making its decision, the district court relied on the 

version of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) that was effective prior to 

December 1, 1990, which states, 

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded 

solely on diversity of citizenship may be brought 

only in the judicial district where all defendants 

reside, or in which the claim arose, except as 

otherwise provided by law. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1988) (emphasis added). This provision was 

amended by the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-650, 

§311, 104 Stat. 5114 (1990), and now provides the following: 

A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded 

solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as 

otherwise provided by law, be brought only if (1) a 

judicial district where any defendant resides, if 

all defendants reside in the same State, (2) ~ 

judicial district in which~ substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred, or (3) a judicial district in which any 

defendant may be found, if there is no district in 

which the action may otherwise be brought. 

28 u.s.c.A. § 1391(b) (West Supp. 1991) (emphasis added). Because 

we are of the opinion that Fullerton's retaliatory transfer claim 

could establish venue based on either the original or amended 

versions of section 1391(b), we decline to decide whether the 

amended version should be applied retroactively. 

6 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 6 
attributable to one of the defendants who are named in the amended 

complaint and who were served with a copy of that complaint. 

Therefore, we remand to the district court for a determination 

whether Fullerton's alleged retaliatory transfer may be attributed 

to one of the defendants named in the amended complaint. 

The district court's holding that Fullerton's amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint is AFFIRMED. The 

district court's denial of appellant's motion to withdraw his 

amended complaint is AFFIRMED. We REMAND to the district court 

for a determination whether Fullerton's alleged retaliatory 

transfer is attributable to a defendant named in the amended 

complaint and for a resolution of the case consistent with this 

opinion. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

7 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-7002 Document: 010110133316 Date Filed: 08/29/1991 Page: 7