Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00505/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00505-1/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

JOSEPH WHITAKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRANE, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-00505 KJM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court are two amended complaints filed by plaintiff as well as his 

application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was 

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

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff’s 

application does not contain the certification that must be completed by an authorized prison 

official and plaintiff has not included a certified copy of his prison trust account statement. 

Plaintiff will therefore be ordered to submit a new application to proceed in forma pauperis in this 

action.

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-00505-KJM-CKD Document 15 Filed 10/03/13 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

27

28

2

II. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaints

On March 26, 2013, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend within thirty 

days because the court was unable to determine the nature of plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 4.) On 

April 4, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint using the court’s form complaint for a civil 

rights action. Subsequently, on May 30, 2013, plaintiff filed a handwritten document styled, 

“Amended Complaint 42 USC 1983 + Exhibits.” Nevertheless, the court has reviewed both 

amended complaints. However, given the allegations set forth therein the nature of plaintiff’s 

claims remain confusing and vague. It appears plaintiff believes the defendants, who are medical 

and correctional staff at California State Prison - Sacramento, have threatened him with housing 

or program changes and engaged in unspecified misconduct. However, plaintiff has failed to 

clarify the nature of that alleged misconduct, the involvement of each named defendant in any 

misconduct directed at him, and which of his constitutional rights were allegedly violated as a 

result of that misconduct. Therefore, plaintiff’s amended complaints will be dismissed and he

will be provided a final opportunity to correct these deficiencies by filing a second amended 

complaint.

III. Requirements for a Second Amended Complaint

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how the 

conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal constitutional or statutory rights. 

See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The second amended complaint must allege in 

specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. 

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). 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).

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 an amended 

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

Case 2:13-cv-00505-KJM-CKD Document 15 Filed 10/03/13 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

27

28

3

general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files his second amended complaint, the prior 

pleadings no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as 

in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently 

alleged. 

III. Conclusion

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

1. Plaintiff’s March 13, 2013 application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 

denied without prejudice.

2. Within thirty days from the service of this order, plaintiff shall file a new application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and include a certified copy of his trust account statement.

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaints filed on April 4, 2013 and May 30, 2013 (ECF No. 7 & 

10) are dismissed.

4. 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 second amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff 

must use the form complaint provided with this order and answer each question.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court's form complaint 

for a § 1983 action and the application to proceed in forma pauperis by a prisoner.

6. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed without prejudice.

Dated: October 2, 2013

DAD:4

whit505.14sec

Case 2:13-cv-00505-KJM-CKD Document 15 Filed 10/03/13 Page 3 of 3