Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02045/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02045-5/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

Plaintiff Jeremy Jones is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 11, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found that 

Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim against Defendants Doctors Tate and Lee for deliberate indifference 

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a cognizable claim against Defendants Wedertz, Stowers, and 

Stratton for conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment, a cognizable claim for 

excessive force against Defendants Sigton, Chamberlin, Harris and Kephart, and a cognizable due 

process violation against Defendant Lundy; however, Plaintiff was advised that the incidents were not 

related and could not be joined in one action. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff was instructed, by way of 

amendment or notice, to choose which claim(s), if any, he wished to proceed on in this action. (Id.) 

Plaintiff was advised that if his amended complaint or notice violates Rule 20 despite the admonition, 

the Court would decide which claims shall proceed and dismiss any and all unrelated claims. (Id.) 

JEREMY JONES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JIMENEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 

TO THE COURT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF 

SERVICE

[ECF No. 24]

Case 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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 February 16, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice to the Court. Plaintiff indicates that he wishes to 

proceed against Defendant Lundy for a due process violation during his rules violation hearing. 

However, Plaintiff indicates that he “would like to amend this complaint to add the name of the watch 

commander Cpt. Lundy assigned to the hearing, C. Schuler, Correctional Lieutenant.” (ECF No. 24, 

Notice at 1.) Plaintiff also indicates he would like to amend the complaint to add “the names of the 

LT that heard this on appeal along with the AW and CDW who all denied, refused to acknowledge 

and signed off on a due process violation that was clearly pointed out to them in his appeal; J. 

Lamboy, Correctional Lieutenant, M. Bryant, Correctional Associate Warden, K. Holland, 

Correctional Chief Deputy Warden, J. Zamora, Correctional Appeals Examiner Office of Appeals, and 

D. Foster, Correctional Chief Office of Appeals.” (Id. at 2.) Lastly, Plaintiff would like to modify his 

prayer for relief. (Id.) 

Because Plaintiff’s notice indicates that Plaintiff wishes to amend the operative complaint, 

Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint setting for his due process claim against Defendant 

Lundy, and any other amendments related to such claim as set forth in his notice. Plaintiff is advised, 

however, that the second amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to the prior 

or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220, and Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must identify how 

each individual defendant caused the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. In 

addition, Plaintiff may not present unrelated claims and/or defendants in his second amended 

complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18, 20. Furthermore, the Court is required to screen any and all complaints 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Lastly, with regard to Plaintiff’s claim that he wishes to amend the 

complaint to add individuals who were involved and/or denied his inmate grievances, Plaintiff is 

advised that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations 

of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that

one of these interests is at stake.” Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384 (2005). 

Plaintiff does not a have protected liberty interest in the processing his appeals, and therefore, he 

cannot pursue a claim for denial of due process with respect to the handling or resolution of his 

appeals. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 

640 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Case 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a second amended 

complaint in compliance with this Court within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02045-DAD-SAB Document 25 Filed 02/19/16 Page 3 of 3