Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02333/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02333-1/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

Defendant Spaulding has been served and answered the complaint on July 2, 1

2004.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHMED KADIL, No. CIV S-03-2333-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, JR.,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint in this case names E. Alameida, Jr.,

and J. Spaulding as defendants. By order dated March 24, 2004, the court determined that

service of the complaint was appropriate for defendant Spaulding, but declined to order service

on defendant Alameida because the complaint failed to allege a sufficient causal link as to such

defendant. The order, however, did not specifically grant plaintiff leave to amend. Because it is 1

possible that the deficiency identified in the March 24, 2004, order may be cured by amending

the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of defendant Alameida. 

See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the

Case 2:03-cv-02333-MCE -CMK Document 23 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 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

2

original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d

740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the court will recommend dismissal

of defendant Alameida and that this action will proceed against defendant Spaulding only.

Finally, the requirement that the parties submit status reports will be lifted. The

court will establish a schedule for the remainder of this litigation at a later date. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file and serve a first amended complaint within

30 days of the date of service of this order; and

2. The requirement that the parties submit status reports is lifted.

DATED: November 28, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-02333-MCE -CMK Document 23 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2