Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01936/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01936-5/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL WAYNE KING,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

JOHN D. CHOKATOS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:12-cv-01936-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 31.)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ RULE 

12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 16.)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 

STATE LAW CLAIMS, WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

 (1) FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR

 (2) NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS

 WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY

 AGAINST DEFENDANTS 

 CHOKATOS AND STRINGER ON 

 PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH 

 AMENDMENT MEDICAL CLAIMS

Darrell Wayne King (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a 

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 4
2

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

On July 9, 2014, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, with leave to 

amend. (Doc. 31.) The parties were granted thirty days in which to file objections to the 

findings and recommendations. To date, no objections have been filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Plaintiff shall be required to either file a First Amended Complaint, or notify the Court 

of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable § 1983 claims against defendants Chokatos 

and Stringer for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Should 

Plaintiff choose to proceed only on the Eighth Amendment medical claims, the Court will 

begin the process to initiate service upon defendants Chokatos and Stringer by the United 

States Marshal. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty 

days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, the First Amended Complaint should 

be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the 

deprivation of Plaintiff=s constitutional or other federal rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 

678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter . . . to >state a claim that is plausible on its 

face.=@ Iqbal at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 

1955 (2007)). There is no respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for 

his or her own misconduct. Iqbal at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant

personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis 

added). 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purposes of adding allegations of events occurring or claims arising after November 29, 

2012. Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 4
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

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

complaints). In addition, Plaintiff should take care to include only those claims that were 

administratively exhausted before he filed the initial Complaint on November 29, 2012.

If Plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended 

complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 

n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the prior or 

superceded pleading. Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original 

complaint 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. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst Amended 

Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of 

perjury. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on July 9, 

2014, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, filed on February 18, 2014, is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state claims for failure to plead 

compliance with California’s Government Claims Act is GRANTED, with leave 

to amend;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s state claim for medical malpractice on 

the ground that Plaintiff’s government claim fails to fairly reflect this claim is 

DENIED as moot, without prejudice;

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for professional negligence 

against defendant Stringer for failure to state a cause of action is DENIED as 

moot, without prejudice;

6. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss;

///

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 08/25/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which 

to EITHER:

(1) File a First Amended Complaint, OR

(2) Notify the court of his willingness to proceed only against defendants 

Chokatos and Stringer on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical claims;

8. The Clerk=s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

9. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint AFirst Amended Complaint@ and refer to the case number 

1:12-cv-01936-LJO-GSA-PC;

10. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to comply with a court order; and

11. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01936-LJO-EPG Document 32 Filed 08/25/14 Page 4 of 4