Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05168/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05168-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5168 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

J. MIRO,et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint. Plaintiff,

an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at

CSP Sacramento, brings this civil rights action against defendant

correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at

Corcoran State Prison. 

Plaintiff claims that he was subjected to inadequate medical

care such that it violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and

unusual punishment. Plaintiff claims generally that he was denied

medical care and subjected to inadequate medical care, but he does not

Case 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 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

2

specifically charge any individual defendant with conduct that amounts to

deliberate indifference. 

Under the Eighth Amendment, the government has an

obligation to provide medical care to those who are incarcerated. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9 Cir. 2000). “In order to violate the th

Eighth Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment,

there must be a ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of

prisoners.’” Id. (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97. 104 (1976)). Lopez

takes a two-prong approach to evaluating whether medical care, or lack

thereof, rises to the level of “deliberate indifference.” First, a court must

examine whether the plaintiff’s medical needs were serious. See Id. 

Second, a court must determine whether “officials intentionally interfered

with [the plaintiff’s] medical treatment.” Id. at 1132.

Plaintiff has failed to allege such facts in this case. The

complaint must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted

leave to file an amended complaint.

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). Also, the complaint 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). 

Case 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 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

3

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to

a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. 

Local Rule 15-220 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 an

amended complaint, the original pleading 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. 

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

1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed; and

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 the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended

Complaint." Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 13, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05168-AWI-SKO Document 19 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3