Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02541/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD SMITH,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

Sergeant ADAM, Nurse BANTA, Dr.

QUAN, Dr. FRIEDMAN, Dr. H.

AUNG, Warden G. E. HARRIS, Dr.

W. JACKSON, Dr. GREWAL, Dr.

FRIEDERICHS, Dr. KRISHNA, and

SSA ALLISON BRAGER, all at the

Correctional Training Facility; Dr.

PAPPENFUS, Dr. YEN, Nurse

RODRIGUEZ, and Warden M.

POWERS, all at Avenal State Prison, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-2541 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. In the initial review order most

of plaintiff’s claims were dismissed or dismissed with leave to amend, although the Court noted

that one claim, against defendant Adam, was sufficient to proceed. Plaintiff has amended.

In the order dismissing the original complaint with leave to amend plaintiff was warned

that the amended complaint would completely replace the original one, and that as a result he

should include all claims he wished to pursue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

Cir. 1992). The amended complaint makes no mention of Adam, so plaintiff has abandoned

that claim. See id. (defendants not named in amended complaint are no longer defendants). 

As to his other claims, in the amended complaint plaintiff has provided no coherent

allegations remedying the deficiencies identified in the dismissal with leave to amend, nor has

he presented any cognizable new claims. The amended complaint is mostly exhibits, from

Case 3:05-cv-02541-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 This dismissal is a strike within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

2

which plaintiff apparently expect the Court to deduce claims. That is not the Court’s job;

instead, it is plaintiff’s job to "proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is

plausible on its face." See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1986-87

(2007) (citations omitted). This he has not done. 

This case is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim..1 All pending motions are DENIED

as moot. The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 12 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\SMITH, R541.DSM.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-02541-WHA Document 22 Filed 08/14/07 Page 2 of 2