Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00133-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and has requested leave 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). 

Plaintiff submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing fee in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct 

the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff’s trust account and 

forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly 

payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to plaintiff’s trust account. 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 12
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

These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time 

the amount in plaintiff’s account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(2).

As discussed below, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

II. Screening Standards

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555. 

However, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 12
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

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. 

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal 

quotations marks omitted). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as 

true the allegations of the complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the 

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

(1974), overruled on other grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

III. The Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation 

of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . 

. . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, 

or other proper proceeding for redress.

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 

liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 

affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 

demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 

to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 

588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979)

(no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 

438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert. 

denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 3 of 12
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

4

official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 

participation is insufficient).

IV. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Generally, plaintiff challenges the mental health care he received while housed in the 

California Health Care Facility-PIP (“CHCF-PIP”) unit. Plaintiff names at least thirteen 

defendants, ranging from the Executive Officer, Program Directors and administrator; staffing, 

appeals and nursing coordinators; a psychologist, recreational therapist, social worker and a 

correctional sergeant. Plaintiff complains that various prison staff impeded his ability to file 

inmate appeals. In addition, plaintiff alleges that the CHCF-PIP unit is seriously understaffed, 

claiming that the special master in Coleman v. Brown, 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB, declared the 

mental health care in the CHCF-PIP to be “a disaster.” (ECF No. 1 at 20, 29.) Specifically, 

plaintiff alleges that on September 6, 2019, defendant Lewis revealed privileged information 

about plaintiff in front of another inmate in retaliation for plaintiff filing a lawsuit against Lewis.

(ECF No. 1 at 15.) Plaintiff claims defendant Lewis intended to incite violence between the other 

inmate and plaintiff. (Id. at 16.) Plaintiff also alleges that on October 10, 2019, defendant 

Lungren denied plaintiff “participation” in retaliation for plaintiff’s administrative grievances. 

V. Discussion

Initially, the court notes that plaintiff generally claims that CHCF-PIP failed to provide 

adequate staffing for plaintiff and other inmates in need of mental health care. Plaintiff also 

claims that there was a conspiracy to keep plaintiff and other inmates from pursuing 

administrative remedies. However, this is not a class action.1 Plaintiff may only raise his own 

claims, not generalized claims as to other inmates.

////

1

 It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. See

McShane v. United States, 366 F.2d 286 (9th Cir. 1966). This rule becomes almost absolute 

when, as here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. Oxendine 

v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975). In direct terms, plaintiff cannot “fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the class,” as required by Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. See Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976). 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 4 of 12
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

5

Second, plaintiff’s claims concerning the ignoring or improper processing of grievances 

fail to state a due process claim. The Due Process Clause protects plaintiff against the deprivation 

of liberty without the procedural protections to which he is entitled under the law. Wilkinson v. 

Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). However, plaintiff has no stand-alone due process rights 

related to the administrative grievance process. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 

2003); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (due process not violated because 

defendant failed to properly process grievances). “Because there is no right to any particular 

grievance process, it is impossible for due process to have been violated by ignoring or failing to 

properly process prison grievances.” Daniels v. Aguillera, 2018 WL 1763311 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 

2018).

Third, plaintiff’s claim that defendants conspired to deprive plaintiff of administrative 

remedies also fails. A conspiracy claim brought under § 1983 requires proof of “‘an agreement or 

meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights,’” Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th 

Cir. 2002) (quoting United Steel Workers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 

(9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted)), and an actual deprivation of constitutional rights, Hart v. 

Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1071 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Woodrum v. Woodward County, Oklahoma, 

866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989)). “‘To be liable, each participant in the conspiracy need not 

know the exact details of the plan, but each participant must at least share the common objective 

of the conspiracy.’” Franklin, 312 F.3d at 441 (quoting United Steel Workers, 865 F.2d at 1541).

The federal system is one of notice pleading, and the court may not apply a heightened pleading 

standard to plaintiff's allegations of conspiracy. Empress LLC v. City and County of San 

Francisco, 419 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2005); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 

1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002). However, although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must 

be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

555. A plaintiff must set forth “the grounds of his entitlement to relief[,]” which “requires more 

than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. . . .” 

Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009). 

As such, a bare allegation that defendants conspired to violate plaintiff's constitutional rights will 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 5 of 12
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

6

not suffice to give rise to a conspiracy claim under § 1983. Here, plaintiff does not have a 

constitutional right to a grievance process, and he alleges no facts demonstrating an agreement or 

meeting of the minds. 

Third, plaintiff’s generalized challenge to the staffing level at CHCF-PIP is insufficient to 

meet the pleading standards under Iqbal. Plaintiff failed to plead facts demonstrating how any 

specific lack of staffing constituted deliberated indifference to plaintiff’s mental health treatment. 

Plaintiff’s generalized allegations that CHCF-PIP was inadequately or poorly staffed is 

insufficient.2 

Finally, the court has reviewed the complaint pursuant to § 1915A and finds it must be 

dismissed with leave to amend because the claims asserted in the complaint are not properly 

joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) concerning joinder of claims and defendants. 

Rule 20(a) provides that all persons may be joined in one action as defendants if “any right to 

relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out 

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of 

law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See also

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against unrelated 

defendants belong in different suits”). If unrelated claims are improperly joined, the court may 

dismiss them without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21; 7 Alan Wright, Arthur Miller & Mary Kay 

Kane, Richard Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1684 (3d ed. 2012); Michaels Building 

Co. v. Ameritrust Co., 848 F.2d 674, 682 (6th Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissing under Rule 21 of 

certain defendants where claims against those defendants did not arise out of the same transaction 

or occurrences, as required by Rule 20(a)).

Here, for example, plaintiff alleges that defendant Lewis retaliated against plaintiff on 

September 6, 2019, and defendant Lungren retaliated against plaintiff on October 10, 2019, based 

on two separate and unrelated incidents. Even though plaintiff raises retaliation claims against 

2

 Moreover, staffing in connection with mental health care at CHCF is at issue in the Coleman

class action, and generalized challenges to policies governing such staffing, including whether 

staffing meets the current requirements under Coleman, are more appropriately raised with the 

class counsel for plaintiffs in Coleman or the special master. Id., 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P. 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 6 of 12
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

7

both defendants, such claims are not legally related under Rule 20 because they involve different 

defendants, different incidents, and therefore will not involve facts common to both defendants. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). 

Where parties have been misjoined, the court may drop a party or sever the claims against 

that party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “[D]istrict courts who dismiss rather than sever must conduct a 

prejudice analysis, including ‘loss of otherwise timely claims if new suits are blocked by statutes 

of limitations.’” Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973, 975 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting DirecTV, 

Inc. v. Leto, 467 F.3d 842, 846-47 (3d Cir. 2006)). Here, because such unrelated claims are based 

on relatively recent incidents, July to October of 2019, plaintiff will not be prejudiced by their 

dismissal, without prejudice, from this action. Plaintiff may pursue such claims in separate, 

timely actions. See also George, 507 F.3d at 607 (“Unrelated claims against unrelated defendants 

belong in different suits”).

For all of the above reasons, plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, and plaintiff is granted 

leave to file an amended complaint.

VI. Standards Governing Potential Claims

In his pleading, plaintiff raises Eighth Amendment and First Amendment retaliation 

claims. To assist plaintiff in preparing his amended complaint, plaintiff is advised of the 

standards governing such claims.

Legal Standard for Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 

Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th 

Cir. 2014); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim a plaintiff “must 

show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result 

in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the 

defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal 

standard,” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown by “(a) a 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 7 of 12
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

8

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of 

action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)).

Further, “[a] difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner -- or between 

medical professionals -- concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to 

deliberate indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th 

Cir. 1989)). Rather, a plaintiff is required to show that the course of treatment selected was 

“medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that the defendant “chose this course in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (quoting 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Legal Standards for First Amendment Retaliation Claims

“Prisoners have a First Amendment right to file grievances against prison officials and to 

be free from retaliation for doing so.” Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(citing Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009)). A viable retaliation claim in the 

prison context has five elements: “(1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action 

against an inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action 

(4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not 

reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 

(9th Cir. 2005). If plaintiff intends to assert a retaliation claim, he must specifically identify the 

protected conduct at issue, name the defendant who took adverse action against him, and plead 

that the allegedly adverse action3 was taken “because of” plaintiff’s protected conduct.

3 For purposes of evaluating a retaliation claim, an adverse action is action that “could chill a 

person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected activity[ ].” Pinard v. 

Clatskanie School Dist., 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006). See also White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 

1214, 1228 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 8 of 12
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

9

The Ninth Circuit has found that preserving institutional order, discipline and security are 

legitimate penological goals which, if they provide the motivation for an official act taken, will 

defeat a claim of retaliation. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994); Rizzo v. 

Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir.1985) (“Challenges to restrictions of first amendment rights 

must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the correctional institution in the 

preservation of internal order and discipline, maintenance of institutional security, and 

rehabilitation of prisoners.”). The burden is thus on plaintiff to allege and demonstrate that 

legitimate correctional purposes did not motivate the actions by prison officials about which he 

complains. See Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[Plaintiff] must show that 

there were no legitimate correctional purposes motivating the actions he complains of.”). 

VII. Leave to Amend

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint so vague and conclusory that it is 

unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The 

court has determined that the complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required 

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading 

policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and 

succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must 

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that 

support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court, however, grants leave to file an 

amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). 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, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 

F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Further, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation 

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 9 of 12
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

10

in § 1983 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 

v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 

omitted)). 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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff 

is assessed an initial partial filing fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b)(1). All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the 

Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently 

herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must 

also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” 

////

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 10 of 12
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

11

Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in the 

dismissal of this action.

Dated: March 4, 2020

/ardd0133.14n

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 11 of 12
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

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-0133 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order

filed______________.

_____________ Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:20-cv-00133-TLN-CSK Document 7 Filed 03/04/20 Page 12 of 12