Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00109-3/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

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

NICHOLAS CHRISTOPHER PAPPAS,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00109-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

(Doc. 16.)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE TO FILE 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, IF HE 

SO WISHES

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND 

COMPLAINT FORM TO PLAINTIFF

I. BACKGROUND

Nicholas Christopher Pappas (“Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this 

action on January 27, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made 

an appearance. (Doc. 6.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the 

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case 

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 12/05/14 Page 1 of 5
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

This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s original Complaint against defendant 

Correctional Officer (C/O) Lopez (“Defendant”) for use of excessive force in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment.1 (Doc. 1). On October 16, 2014, the court issued an order directing the 

United States Marshal to serve process upon Defendant. (Doc. 15.) To date, there is no 

evidence on the court’s record that Defendant has been served, and Defendant has not appeared 

in this action. (Court Record.)

On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed motion for preliminary injunctive relief and a 

motion to amend the Complaint. (Doc. 16.)

II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AA preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.@ 

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (citation 

omitted). AA plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to 

succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary 

relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public 

interest.@ Id. at 374 (citations omitted). An injunction may only be awarded upon a clear 

showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Id. at 376 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and in considering a request for 

preliminary injunctive relief, the Court is bound by the requirement that as a preliminary 

matter, it have before it an actual case or controversy. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 

95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for 

Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). If the 

Court does not have an actual case or controversy before it, it has no power to hear the matter 

in question. Id. Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. '

3626(a)(1)(A) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find the 

Arelief [sought] is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of 

 

1 On September 29, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants 

from this action, based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 12.)

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 12/05/14 Page 2 of 5
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

the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the 

Federal right.@

Plaintiff requests a court order requiring Warden K. Holland to retrain certain 

correctional officers as to their expected duties and the mandated program for allowing inmates 

to take showers. Plaintiff also requests an order directing prison officials to allow him to 

shower at least every 72 hours. Plaintiff also requests immediate transfer to another facility if 

prison officials continue their improper conduct or begin to act with criminal intent out of 

retaliation. 

Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because such relief would not remedy any of the 

claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring 

officials to conduct training of correctional officers, directing officials to allow him to take 

showers, or transferring him to another facility, because the Court does not have such a case or 

controversy before it in this action. See Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 

(1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 

454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982). Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action arises 

from an incident of excessive force by defendant C/O Lopez which allegedly occurred in 

September 2013. Plaintiff now requests a court order requiring future action. Because the 

court order sought by Plaintiff for future action would not remedy any of the claims upon 

which this action proceeds, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue such orders, and Plaintiff=s 

motion must be denied.

III. LEAVE TO AMEND – RULE 15(a)

Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint to add defendant C/O Lomas, and 

possibly other defendants, for conduct occurring in November 2014 when officers refused to 

allow Plaintiff to take a shower.

Plaintiff is hereby informed that under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, a party may amend the party=s pleading once as a matter of course at any time 

before a responsive pleading is served. Otherwise, a party may amend only by leave of the 

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 12/05/14 Page 3 of 5
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

court or by written consent of the adverse party, and leave shall be freely given when justice so 

requires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Because Plaintiff has not amended the complaint, and no 

responsive pleading has been served in this action, Plaintiff has leave to file an amended 

complaint as a matter of course. However, the court strongly suggests to Plaintiff that he

should not amend the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings to add a claim about denial of 

access to showers in November 2014. Under Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

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

an amended complaint, George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no Abuckshot@

complaints), and therefore it would be futile for Plaintiff to add this unrelated claim. Moreover, 

Plaintiff is cautioned not to add claims to the Complaint based on events occurring after the

original Complaint was filed and for which he has not exhausted administrative remedies. 

Should Plaintiff decide to file an amended complaint, he should seriously consider whether any 

added claims could be found cognizable by the court. The court is required to screen Plaintiff’s 

complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A before they can proceed against the defendants.

Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint if he so wishes. Plaintiff is informed 

that he must demonstrate in his amended complaint 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 amended 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). 

Plaintiff is also 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. 

Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 

involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The First Amended Complaint, if 

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 12/05/14 Page 4 of 5
5

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

any, should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst Amended Complaint,@ refer to the appropriate 

case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is informed that he has leave to amend the complaint once as a matter 

of course, if he so wishes, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this 

order;

3. The First Amended Complaint, if any, should be clearly and boldly titled AFirst 

Amended Complaint,@ refer to case number 1:14-cv-00109-GSA-PC, and be an 

original signed under penalty of perjury;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send one civil rights complaint form to Plaintiff; 

and

5. Should Plaintiff decide not to file an amended complaint within thirty days, this 

case shall proceed with the original Complaint against defendant C/O Lopez, on 

Plaintiff’s claim for excessive force.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00109-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 12/05/14 Page 5 of 5