Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01971/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01971-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DE’WANN WHITE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

STU SHERMAN, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01971-RRB

ORDER DISMISSING

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

At Docket 10 Plaintiff De’Wann White has filed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

(hereinafter “FAC”) in response to the Court’s Dismissal Order.1 The Court reviews the

Amended Complaint applying the same standards it applied to the original.

I. DISCUSSION

White has divided his FAC into six separate Causes of Action. The Court will

discuss each in seriatim. 

In its Dismissal Order the Court specifically instructed White that with respect to

each claim he must specify who, what, when. The Court notes that throughout his FAC,

although he specifies the date and to some extent the what, White refers to “Defendant”

or “Defendants” without specifying which Defendant or Defendants to which reference is

made. Therefore, in reviewing the FAC the Court will assume that the factual allegations

1

 Docket 9.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 1

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 15
in each cause of action are directed solely at the Defendant(s) specifically identified in

connection with that allegation, or specifically identified by name in the cause of action. 

The Court also notes that in several instances to the extent he names individual

defendants he does so in their supervisory capacity. To impose liability on a supervisor,

the supervisor’s wrongful conduct must be sufficiently causally connected to the

constitutional violation.2 That is, the official must “implement a policy so deficient that the

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the

constitutional violation.”3

A person deprives another “of a constitutional right, within the

meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in

another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].” 

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978) (Johnson) (emphasis

added). The inquiry into causation must be individualized and focus on the

duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts or

omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation. [Citations

omitted.]4

The acts of those Defendants sued in their supervisory capacity will be measured against

that standard.

For the most part White’s action purports to raise Eighth Amendment “cruel and

unusual” claims. It is clearly established that prison officials have a duty under the Eighth

Amendment to provide inmates with the necessities of life, including adequate shelter, 

2 See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) (en

banc) (abrogated in part on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)).

3

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

4

Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoted with approval in

Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco., 570 F.3d 1078, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)).

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 2

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 2 of 15
food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.

5 On the other hand, “[t]he

Eighth Amendment is not a basis for broad prison reform. It requires neither that prisons

be comfortable nor that they provide every amenity that one might find desirable.”6 Prison

condition claims have both an objective and subjective element. The objective element is

based on the severity of the deprivation and the subjective on the prison official’s

knowledge of the risk of serious injury or pain being inflicted by consciously ignoring the

prisoner’s needs.7 The circumstances, nature, and duration of a deprivation of a necessity

must be considered in determining whether a constitutional violation has occurred.8

However, to rise to the dimension of a Constitutional violation, the “need” must be related

to a serious condition, i.e., one that adversely affects the person’s daily activities or causes

chronic and serious pain.9 The Court will measure White’s claims against this standard.

5 See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083,

1089 (9th Cir. 1996); Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on

other grounds by Sandlin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d

1129, 1132–1133 (9th Cir. 1981). 

6 Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246 (abrogated on other grounds by Connor, 515 U.S. 472

(court may consider the length of time that a prisoner must go without benefits)); see

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981).

7 See, e.g., Collins v. State, 2006 WL 1587467, Slip Op. *2 (W.D. Va. June 6,

2006); Lavender v. Lampert, 242 F.Supp.2d 821, 845–846 (D. Or. 2002); ASHANN-RA v.

Commonwealth of Virginia, 112 F.Supp.2d 559, 562–63 (W.D. Va. 2000). 

8

Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2000), citing Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at

1259 (“[t]he more basic the need, the shorter the time it may be withheld”). 

9

 See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 3

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 3 of 15
First Cause of Action

In his First Cause of Action, an Eighth Amendment claim, White contends that

prison officials disregarded dirty and/or unsanitary blankets, and failed to enforce a proper

exchange policy. White specifically identifies three individuals: H. Vaca (in charge of the

laundry); Sgt. B. Castelle, and Stu Sherman (Warden). In all other respects White simply

refers to unnamed Defendants.

For the most part White’s allegations concern his attempts to exhaust his

administrative remedies during the period February 11 through September 23, 2014. As

relevant to his Eighth Amendment claim, White challenges the once or twice a year blanket

exchange policy at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Corcoran,

(“CSATF”).10In the interim between exchanges inmates are required to wash their own

blankets. As a result, White alleges that he suffered from a skin ailment, fungal sepsis.

In this respect, the Court notes that the California prison regulations provide that

inmates are provided two blankets.11 The regulations also provide for a weekly exchange

of sheets and pillow cases, but are silent on the question of blanket exchanges.12 Thus, for

the purposes of this Order the Court assumes without deciding that the blanket exchange

policy at issue in this case was made at the institutional level. Accordingly, the proper

Defendant with respect to White’s First Cause of Action is the warden, Stu Sherman.

10

 Docket 10, p. 31. 

11

 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3030(b)(1)(E). 

12

 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3031(b). 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 4

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 4 of 15
The fatal flaws with respect to his First Cause of Action as presently pleaded are

twofold. First, the injury White contends he suffered as result of the failure to exchange

blankets on a more frequent basis is based upon his own diagnosis of the both the ailment

(fungal sepsis) and the cause, not that of a licensed medical practitioner.13

In the absence

of any competent medical evidence that White suffered some debilitating injury or ailment

as result of the failure to more frequently exchange his blankets, White has failed to plead

a viable claim.

Second, although White apparently attempted to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to the blanket exchange policy, he simply contended it was

unsanitary without further elucidation. At no point does it appear that he contended that he

suffered any identifiable adverse medical condition as a result of the failure to more

frequently exchange blankets. It being obvious that White is unable to plead a viable Eighth

Amendment claim for the failure to more frequently exchange blankets, the First Cause of

Action will be dismissed without leave to amend.14 

13 The medical records attached to the FAC covering the period December 2013

through June 2014 reveal numerous treatments for musculoskeletal complaints, as well

as headaches, there is no mention of any skin ailment. The Court also notes that White

attached copies of his medical and dental records for 2014 to his original Complaint. The

Court’s review of those records, while they also reveal treatments for musculoskeletal

complaints, as well as headaches, there is no mention of any skin ailment.

14 See Hartman v. California Dept. of Corr. and Rehab., 707 F.3d 1141, 1130 (9th

Cir. 2013) (“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”);

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130–31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that leave

to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,

292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff

leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly

broad.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 5

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 5 of 15
Second Cause of Action

In the Second Cause of Action White alleges that on several occasions the cell in

which he was confined lacked adequate heat and ventilation. As a result of this lack of

adequate ventilation White allegedly suffered various aliments, including giddiness,

difficulty breathing, ear pain, nausea, sinus infections, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia, and

chronic migraines.

With respect to the lack of heat, White’s allegations fall short of pleading a viable

action under the Eighth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment only requires adequate heat,

not a comfortable temperature.15 White has not alleged that the lack of heat posed a

substantial risk of serious harm, only that it was uncomfortable.16

As presently constituted, accepted as true, White’s Second Cause of Action as

stated in the body of his FAC pleads the necessary elements of an Eighth Amendment

violation with respect to the inadequacy of the ventilation. On the other hand, by its vague

reference to “defendants” it does not sufficiently identify the persons responsible for those

conditions. White refers to Lt. D. Stohl, but does not allege any act upon the part of

Lt. Stohl that infringed upon a constitutionally protected right. White also specifically

identifies Warden Sherman by name, but names the Warden solely in his supervisory

capacity. 

15 See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curium).

16

Id. at 1049.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 6

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 6 of 15
More importantly, however, the Exhibits evidencing his medical treatment attached

to the FAC not only do not support, but eviscerate, any causal connection between White’s

alleged injuries and the conditions described. The medical records show that White was

treated for migraines on five dates: September 17 and December 3, 2013, and March 14,

May 19, and July 16, 2014,

17

on the other dates White was treated for an unrelated

musculoskeletal complaint. The July 16 entry indicates that with respect to his migraines

and allergies White was “at goal.” The medical records attached to both the Complaint and

the FAC also establish that the migraines and allergies predated the environmental

conditions of which he complains. 

Consequently, although it is highly unlikely that White can truthfully plead a viable 

claim arising out of the allegedly inadequate ventilation, the Second Cause of Action will

be dismissed with leave to amend.18In amending White must identify the responsible

person(s) by name, not simply by the generic defendant(s). White must also plead more

than a conclusory allegation that he suffered a serious adverse medical condition, but

allege the existence of some competent medical evidence supporting that claim.

Third Cause of Action

White’s Third Cause of Action, also an Eighth Amendment claim, alleges that on

numerous dates he was denied a shower and forced to bathe in a sink without hot water,

deprived of outdoor exercise, and access to a telephone to contact his attorney and family. 

17

 Docket 10, pp. 269–75.

18

In further amending with respect to this claim White should include the relevant

factual allegations regarding the issue that are included in his Third Cause of Action.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 7

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 7 of 15
White also appears to challenge his classification as a “Crip.”19 White further elaborates

on the issue raised in his Second Cause of Action, i.e., the lack of adequate ventilation.20

White’s allegations cover the 13-month period September 11, 2013, through October 8,

2014. The periods of deprivation were sporadic and ranged in time from a single day to two

weeks. The two-week period involved a lockdown related to a race-related stabbing

incident in which it appears White was not involved. It also appears that on two other

occasions the alleged deprivations occurred during lockdowns related to violence between

inmates. White alleges that these lockdowns were not required for penological purposes: 

conclusory statements unsupported by facts. Furthermore, the Court must accord “wideranging deference to the judgment of prison officials in the adoption and execution of

policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and

discipline and maintain institutional security.”

21 White has not alleged any factual basis

upon which the Court could substitute its judgment for that of the prison officials. 

Accordingly, the lockdowns do not support granting White any relief in any form.

19 One of the documents attached to the FAC indicate that White’s gang affiliation

was removed. Docket 10, p. 78. Consequently, the relevance of White’s allegation

concerning his gang affiliation to the matters at issue in this action is unexplained and

inexplicable.

20 The Court considered those allegations in reviewing the Second Cause of Action,

and does not reconsider them in connection with the Third Cause of Action..

21 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979). 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 8

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 8 of 15
Whether taken individually or collectively, while no doubt establishing that his

conditions of confinement were less than comfortable,22 White’s remaining allegations do

not rise to the level necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual

punishment violation. In several instances White refers to a single occurrence, e.g., denial

of telephone contact with his family or lawyer, attendance at religious services, lack of

electrical power, but does allege any specific compensable harm or injury that may have

occurred as a result of that denial. The Court further notes that in several instances the

factual allegations asserted in the body of the FAC are contradicted by the very documents

attached to and referred to in FAC.23It does not appear that White can truthfully plead facts

sufficient to warrant the granting of relief. Therefore the Third Cause of Action must be

dismissed without leave to amend.

Fourth Cause of Action

The Fourth Cause of Action alleges a denial of access to the law library in violation

of the Eighth Amendment. Although not within the ambit of the Eighth Amendment, the

Court starts with the proposition that the right of access to the courts is a well established

fundamental constitutional right.24It is, however, also well established that there must be

22 See Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1246 (noting that the Eighth Amendment does not

requires that prisons be comfortable).

23 For example days upon which he claims he was denied a shower where the

attachments indicate showers were available. White does not explain this discrepancy.

24 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 828 (1977). 

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 9

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 9 of 15
some injury and that requirement is not satisfied by just any type of frustrated legal claim.

25

Access to the courts in the Constitutional context is the opportunity to prepare, serve, and

file such pleadings and documents necessary or appropriate to commence or prosecute

court proceedings affecting one’s personal liberty.

26 Access to court claims are of two

types—a forward-looking claim, i.e., one in which the action seeks to remove impediments

or road blocks to future litigation, and a backward-looking claim, i.e., one in which specific

litigation ended poorly, or could not have commenced, or could have produced a result

subsequently unobtainable.27 

The Court noted in dismissing the Complaint that White alleged that he was denied

access to the law library on two dates: May 23 and July 3, 2014. Conspicuously lacking

was any allegation that White suffered any injury as a result of the claimed denial of access

on those two dates, i.e., suffered some adverse action or that he was precluded from

exercising some constitutionally protected right. In the body of his FAC White does not

specifically refers to any specific date on which he was denied access to the law library. 

Instead, White attaches and refers to internal grievances.28

25

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351–54 (1996) (actual injury requirement in

access-to-courts claim requires showing frustration of the pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim).

26

Id. at 384 (Thomas, J. concurring); Philips v. Hust, 477 F.3d 1070, 1075–76 (9th

Cir. 2007); Simmons v. Sacramento County Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1159–60 (9th

Cir. 2003). 

27 See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 413–14 (2002). 

28

 FAC, Exh. 5, Docket 10, pp. 193–213.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 10

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 10 of 15
Initially the Court notes that White alleges in purely conclusory terms that as a result

of this denial of access he was unable to aggrieve legal matters thereby precluding him

from completing a meritorious suit. White does not, however, identify the factual basis

underlying the “meritorious suit.” Conclusory allegations standing alone are insufficient to

support a claim.

29

More importantly, White’s internal grievances are based upon an alleged denial of

the minimum of two hours of law library time weekly required by California regulations.30

The internal grievances attached to the FAC indicate that between November 19, 2013 and

April 11, 2014, White was ducated for two-hour library sessions on nine occasions, and

attended on seven of those dates. On one of the dates White was ducated for a library

session the prison was on partial lock-down. On two of the dates the library was closed,

but White was allowed to make up one of the missed dates.31

The allegations of the FAC fall far short of pleading a viable claim that the acts of

Defendants, either individually or collectively, denied White access to the courts. Indeed,

on the facts as presented, White’s claim is frivolous. Therefore, the Fourth Cause of

Action will also be dismissed without leave to amend.

29 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); see Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555–57 (2007) 

30

 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3134(b). White also inexplicably refers to an alleged

denial of legal supplies. The attachments to the Complaint clearly establish that his

grievance regarding this issue was granted and legal supplies were supplied. White does

not identify any injury he suffered as a result of the delay.

31

 Notably, White does not dispute those facts.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 11

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 11 of 15
Fifth Cause of Action

In his Fifth Cause of Action White renews his claim that prison officials improperly

opened his legal mail. In an attempt to circumvent the defect noted in the Court’s Dismissal

Order, i.e., that it was read, White now alleges that his legal correspondence was “opened

and read to plaintiff’s knowledge” by unidentified defendants. White also alleges that he

was injured by the breach of his clearly established right to confidentiality and delay in

receiving his legal mail. White further alleges that Warden Sherman, the only identified

defendant, failed to properly train and supervise his subordinates.

As the Court noted in its Dismissal Order White has not alleged any actual injury

from the opening of his incoming legal mail. To be entitled to injunctive relief, White “must

demonstrate that he is realistically threatened by a repetition of [the violation].”32

A threat of repetition can be shown at least two ways. First, a plaintiff may

show that the defendant had, at the time of the injury, a written policy, and

that the injury stems from that policy. Second, the plaintiff may demonstrate

that the harm is part of a pattern of officially sanctioned . . . behavior,

violative of the plaintiffs’ [federal] rights.33

Because White is no longer incarcerated at CSATF, his claim for injunctive relief is moot.34

Consequently, White’s Complaint does not allege facts entitling him to injunctive relief. 

Accordingly, White’s Fifth Cause of Action will be dismissed without leave to amend.

32 Nordstrom, 762 F.3d at 911 (alterations and emphasis in the original) (citations

and internal quotation marks omitted).

33

Id. (emphasis in the original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

34 See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948

F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam); Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th

Cir. 1986).

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 12

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 12 of 15
Sixth Cause of Action

White’s Sixth Cause of Action appears to be amalgam of unrelated grievances: staff

misconduct in the processing of his internal grievances; staff misconduct in labeling him

a “snitch”; a coverup of staff misconduct; and the destruction of personal property (hair

clippers) during a cell search.

Assuming without deciding that the pleaded facts establish staff misconduct in the

processing of his internal grievances, White still falls far short of establishing a viable claim

for relief in this Court. At most, White has pleaded facts sufficient to establish cause for 

excusing compliance with the internal grievance procedures as a prerequisite to filing a

complaint in this Court. White does not, however, allege any injury independent of the

failure to properly process his grievances, including their destruction. While this is a matter

of serious concern, it is more properly the subject of internal prison disciplinary

proceedings against the correctional officers concerned; not a civil rights proceeding in this

Court.

The allegation that White was labeled a “snitch” on the other hand raises a different

issue. White quoted Davis as stating: “I heard about you, only a ‘snitch’ writes all of those

things for nothing. The log book shows that program was given and if there’s a problem I

can have you moved.”35 White further alleges that the statement was made in front of

inmates and that he, White, was threatened with bodily harm by black inmates. Taken in

context the quoted remark more likely than not cannot logically be construed as labeling

35

 Docket 10, p. 25 (quotation marks in the original).

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 13

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 13 of 15
White as a “snitch” with respect to other inmates. This Court cannot however

unequivocally hold that a properly instructed, reasonable jury could not plausibly reach that

conclusion. On the other hand, the mere conclusory statements that White was threatened

by other black inmates is patently insufficient.36

In amending his complaint White must

plead specific facts, including the nature of the threat and, where known, the identity of the

inmates who threatened him.

With respect to the alleged destruction of White’s hair clippers, even accepting

White’s allegations on their face as true, the loss incurred was, at most, minimal—hardly

the matter of a federal civil rights action. 

Although it is highly unlikely that White can truthfully plead plausible facts sufficient

to establish any compensable injury, the Sixth Cause of Action will also be dismissed with

leave to amend with respect to the alleged labeling as a “snitch.”

II. ORDER

The First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action in the First Amended Complaint

are hereby DISMISSED, without leave to amend. 

The Second and Sixth Causes of Action are hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend.

36 The allegation that an unidentified inmate “warned” White not to talk to the guards

without the presence of another prisoner, while indicative of the possibility of a threat, does

not itself establish the existence of a threat to White’s safety.

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 14

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 14 of 15
White is hereby granted through and including Friday, August 14, 2015, within

which to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with this and the Court’s earlier

order. In further amending his complaint White is reminded that he must:

1. Separate each claim including, where appropriate, a caption for the claim;

2. sequentially number the paragraphs; and

3. with respect to each claim identify the constitutionally protected right violated,

describe the act(s) that violated that right, identify by name and, if known, the title of the

person(s) who committed the act(s), state the date(s) of the act(s), and describe the injury

or damage suffered as a result of the violation.37 

In addition, with respect to each claim affirmatively plead that he has exhausted his

available administrative remedies and attach to the Amended Complaint copies of all

documents evidencing such exhaustion to the extent they are in his possession, custody,

or control. 

Failure to comply with this Order within the time specified, or such additional

time as the Court may grant, may result in the dismissal of this action without further

notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of July, 2015

S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

37 See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8(a).

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

White v. Sherman, 1:14-cv-01971-RRB – 15

Case 1:14-cv-01971-RRB Document 11 Filed 07/08/15 Page 15 of 15