Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02831/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02831-3/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

AVON DAVIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. DELAVEGA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2831 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis with an action for violation of 

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to have all matters in this action before a 

United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On December 17, 2014, plaintiff’s 

complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an 

amended complaint.

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

Case 2:14-cv-02831-MCE-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 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

2

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint so vague and conclusory 

that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the Federal Rules adopt a 

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim 

plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants 

engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed. 

The court will, however, grant plaintiff one final opportunity to amend his complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how 

the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff complains about the 

denial of adequate medical care. Plaintiff is informed that denial or delay of medical care for a 

prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment 

rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a 

violation only when the individual is deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical 

needs. Id.

 If plaintiff choses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific 

terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed 

deprivation. 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02831-MCE-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 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

3

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the original 

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as 

in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

Finally, the court notes that plaintiff has filed two motions for preliminary injunctive 

relief. Because no defendants have been served with process, the court does not have jurisdiction 

to issue any orders granting preliminary injunctive relief. Therefore, plaintiff’s motions will be 

denied without prejudice to renewal after a defendant has been served with process.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the second amended complaint 

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended 

Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the second amended complaint;

failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02831-MCE-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 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

4

3. Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 22 & 23) are denied 

without prejudice to renewal after a defendant has been served with process.

Dated: March 17, 2015

1

davi2831.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02831-MCE-CKD Document 25 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 4