Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00916/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00916-2/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL SALDANA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0916 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On May 29, 2019, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to due 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and 

plaintiff was given instructions as to the contents of his amended complaint. 

As plaintiff now knows, 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 claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

Case 2:19-cv-00916-KJM-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/27/20 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

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint and finds that it still fails to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted under federal law for the following reasons:

1. While plaintiff asserts he has been denied due process in certain respects, he fails to 

identify a liberty interest to which due process protection applies. Such liberty interests are 

“generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an 

unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, 

[citations omitted], nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in 

relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). 

2. Plaintiff complains about medical care but fails to adequately allege that he has 

suffered injury as a result of a defendant’s deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical 

needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976).

/////

/////

Case 2:19-cv-00916-KJM-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/27/20 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

3. Plaintiff asserts he has been injured in certain respects but fails to identify the person 

causing injury. 

For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff will be given 

one more opportunity to amend. In drafting his second amended complaint, the plaintiff should 

consider the flaws in his amended complaint identified above and consider the advice given to 

plaintiff upon the dismissal of his original complaint including:

1. 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).

2. 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). Further vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations 

are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Finally, 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 any amended 

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

general rule, any 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 amended complaint is dismissed. 

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

amended complaint on the form provided by the court that complies with the requirements of 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.” Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with 

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

Case 2:19-cv-00916-KJM-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/27/20 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. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the court’s form-complaint for actions 

arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and brought by California prisoners.

Dated: February 27, 2020

1

sald0916.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:19-cv-00916-KJM-CKD Document 12 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 4