Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00023/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

ANTHONY STITH, 

Plaintiff, CV F 05 00023 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

HARRELL WATTS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S..C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons at the U.S.

Penitentiary at Atwater, brings this civil rights action against defendant correctional officials

employed by the BOP at Atwater. Plaintiff claims that he is subjected to unconstitutional

conditions of confinement.

 In order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a person

was acting under color of state law at the time the complained of act was committed; and (2) that

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

1A Bivens cause of action is a judicially created counterpart to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for claims

against federal officers. Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

2

person’s conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. Paratt v.Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981). There are

no allegations that any of the defendants, U.S. Bureau of Prison employees, were acting under

color of state law.1 The complaint must therefore be dismissed. 

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). Also, the complaint 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); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.

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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an 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 complaint is dismissed; and

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

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 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

and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned

this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original and two

copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2005 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00023-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/02/05 Page 3 of 3