Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263-2/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD EARLY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5263 REC SMS P 

ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 42.)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK FORM

Roderick Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 3, 2003. On March 21, 2003, however, the

Court administratively closed the case and directed the Clerk of Court to return Plaintiff’s

original case documents to him by mail. (Doc. 6.) The case was administrative closed pursuant

to Judge Oliver Wanger’s previously filed Order on September 14, 2000, amended on March 26,

2003, which required Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or submit evidence that he was in imminent

danger of immediate physical harm. Plaintiff failed to do either of the two prior to the Clerk’s

filing the case, however, the case was opened. Subsequently, the Court issued an Order

administratively closing the case. 

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 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

2

On June 5, 2003, Plaintiff moved the Court to vacate its judgement and accept the filing

fee. (Doc. 22.) The Court granted the request and the case was reopened on July 21, 2003. 

(Doc. 24.) On February 6, 2004, the Court issued an Order requiring Plaintiff to re-submit the

Complaint as none existed in the case file. Plaintiff did not, however, comply and on March 31,

2004, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations that the action be dismissed for

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order. (Doc. 31.) At some point in time, Plaintiff

resubmitted the Complaint. The Court screened the Complaint and dismissed it with leave to

amend on December 8, 2004. The Court found that out of Plaintiff’s fifteen claims for relief, he

did not state any claims against any of the Defendants. Plaintiff was given leave to amend. An

Amended Complaint was filed on December 20, 2004. 

B. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

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

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

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also 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 Hospital 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). 

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 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

3

B. RULE 8(a)

Plaintiff was informed in the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend that his

Amended Complaint needed to comply with Rule 8(a) which requires a short and plain statement

of the claim showing Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of

notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation

of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give

the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id.

at 47. 

In this instance, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s allegations are not sufficient to put any of

the Defendants on notice of his claims for relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint is extremely difficult to

read as he provides forty eight pages consisting of two hundred thirty four (234) paragraphs and

names approximately 104 Defendants. Although Plaintiff provides headings for each of his

twelve claims for relief, underneath each claim he incorporates all of the preceding paragraphs by

reference. The time frame of these incidents appear to span from 1999 to late 2003, well after

the initiation of this action. Due to the manner in which Plaintiff has organized his Amended

Complaint, the Court finds it cannot easily determine which facts go with which claims and/or

Defendants without expending considerable time. It is not appropriate for Plaintiff to throw in

everything but the kitchen sink, list over 100 Defendants and then expect the Court to match it all

up. This is the purpose of Rule 8's “short and plain” requirement. The Court simply does not

have the time or the resources to do this on Plaintiff’s behalf. Thus, the Court will afford

Plaintiff another opportunity to submit an Amended Complaint. This Complaint should provide

a short and plain statement of the claim for relief which consists of a brief description of each

Defendant’s act or omission that constitutes the violation. For example, if Plaintiff’s seeks to

raise an Eighth Amendment claim, he must say what acts were done that constitute the violation,

by whom where the acts committed and when they were committed. Plaintiff should try to be as

brief as possible only including only those Defendants and specific facts that give rise to the

alleged constitutional violation. Plaintiff should be aware that the Court wishes to proceed with

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 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

1Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). 

Thus, even if Plaintiff has since exhausted, the claims would be dismissed as the exhaustion did not occur prior to

filing suit. McKinney, 311 F.3d at 1199-1201.

4

service of the Complaint as much as Plaintiff does, however, until it can determine that Plaintiff

states cognizable claims for relief, it cannot order service. Thus, it is in Plaintiff’s interest to be

as specific, clear and as brief as possible. Again, Plaintiff should specifically link each

Defendant to a specific act or omission giving rise to the constitutional violation in as brief a

manner as possible. In addition, Plaintiff should refrain from including events that occurred after

March 3, 2003, as those claims would necessarily be unexhausted and would require dismissal.1 

C. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not contain any claims upon

which relief can be granted under § 1983 against any of the Defendants. The Court will provide

Plaintiff with time to file a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified above

should he wish to do so. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Second Amended Complaint how the conditions

complained of resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The Second Amended Complaint must specifically state how each

Defendant is involved. Further, 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). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 03/21/06 Page 4 of 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

5

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

E. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form;

2. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a SECOND Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by

the Court in this Order, or

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a Second

Amended Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary

dismiss the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 60 Filed 03/21/06 Page 5 of 5