Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00666/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00666-5/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

PETER DALE GRAVES,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0666-GEB-CMK P

vs.

B. WILLIAMS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 16, 2007, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendant Mallatt. Process directed to defendant Mallatt was returned unserved

because defendant is “no longer at hospital, unable to locate.” Although in forma pauperis status

relieves a plaintiff of the responsibility of effecting service, plaintiff is still responsible for

providing sufficient information to serve defendants. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422

(9th Cir. 1994) (failure of indigent defendant to provide sufficient information to serve

defendants is sufficient reason to dismiss action for failure to obtain service). Plaintiff must

provide additional information to serve this defendant. 

Case 2:07-cv-00666-KJM -CMK Document 31 Filed 09/17/07 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

Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information through discovery, the California

Public Records Act, Calif. Gov't. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to plaintiff. If

access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial

intervention. Once additional information sufficient to effect service is obtained, plaintiff shall

notify the court whereupon plaintiff will be forwarded the forms necessary for service by the U.S.

Marshal. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to effect service may result in the dismissal of

unserved defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Additionally, plaintiff named Brett Williams as a defendant in his complaint. The

court previously found the complaint does not state a cognizable claim against this defendant

because plaintiff did not link defendant Williams to any alleged deprivation of his Eighth

Amendment rights. However, plaintiff was not provided an opportunity to amend his complaint

to allege a sufficient link between defendant Williams’ actions and plaintiff’s alleged deprivation

of his Eighth Amendment rights. Because it is possible that the deficiencies as to defendant

Williams identified by the court may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to

leave to amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original

complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, if plaintiff

amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's

amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 2:07-cv-00666-KJM -CMK Document 31 Filed 09/17/07 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

Because the complaint appears to otherwise state cognizable claims, if no

amended complaint is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and

recommendations that the complaint against defendant Williams be dismissed, and the action

will proceed against the other defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall promptly seek additional information sufficient to effect

service on defendant Mallatt;

2. Plaintiff shall notify the court when additional information sufficient to

effect service on defendant Mallatt is obtain and the court shall direct the Clerk of the Court to

send plaintiff materials necessary for service; 

3. Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall provide

additional information about defendant Mallatt which is sufficient for service or he shall show

cause, in writing, why he cannot provide such information; 

4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date

of this order; and

5. If no amended complaint is filed within the time allowed by this order,

findings and recommendations will issue recommending the dismissal of defendant Williams

from this action.

DATED: September 14, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00666-KJM -CMK Document 31 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 3