Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00516/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00516-3/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Screening Requirement and Standard

Plaintiff Alejandro Madrid (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on 

October 21, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) The action was transferred to this Court on April 11, 2014. (ECF 

No. 10.) On January 13, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to 

amend. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on February 9, 2015, is currently 

before the Court for screening. 

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

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

ALEJANDRO MADRID,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00516-AWI-BAM (PC)

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 

LEAVE TO AMEND

(ECF No. 19)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 11
2

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

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

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 

entitled to relief. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s 

allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be facially plausible, which requires sufficient 

factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is liable for the 

misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. 

United States Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer possibility that a defendant 

acted unlawfully is not sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572 

F.3d at 969.

II. Plaintiff’s Allegations

Plaintiff is currently housed at the Sierra Conservation Center in Jamestown, California. The 

events in the complaint allegedly occurred while Plaintiff was housed at Pleasant Valley State Prison

(PVSP). Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); (2) Dr. Akinwumi Ola; (3) Dr. Ulysis Baniga; 

(4) Charles Young, Chief Executive Officer, Health Care Services; (5) L. D. Zamora, Chief Appeals 

Coordinator; and (6) the Medical Authorization Review Committee. Plaintiff brings suit against 

defendants in their individual and official capacities. 

Jeffrey Beard

Plaintiff contends that Jeffrey Beard is responsible for the overall daily operation of prisons 

and failed to ensure an effective plan for medical care at PVSP. Plaintiff alleges that Secretary Jeffrey 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 11
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

27

28

Beard knew or should have known that Plaintiff had a severe shoulder injury and he needed surgery 

because Plaintiff filed several 602 grievances that required a response from the third level, which is 

the Secretary’s level. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Beard is directly involved and responsible 

because the denial of Plaintiff’s grievances at the third level caused the violations of Plaintiff’s right to 

medical care. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Beard’s response was a direct failure to remedy the 

wrongs complained of and constituted a willingness to continue a policy or custom. Plaintiff further 

alleges that the denial of the grievances was gross negligence in Defendant Beard’s supervision of his 

subordinates. 

Doctor Ola

Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Ola failed to follow the rules, policies and guidelines for treatment 

of prisoners with serious medical needs at PVSP. Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Ola failed to follow the 

rules, policies and medical guidelines when he became aware that Plaintiff had a severe shoulder 

injury that required surgery and failed to provide adequate medical care and pain medication for 

Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Ola’s refusal to provide adequate pain medication or to 

take the steps necessary to ensure Plaintiff received a shoulder replacement once he became informed 

by outside specialists and orthopedic surgeons was a direct violation of Plaintiff’s right to adequate 

medical care and constituted deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that 

as a result of Doctor Ola’s negligence, Plaintiff was forced to endure intense pain and suffering. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Doctor Ola failed to fully document Plaintiff’s need for a shoulder 

replacement and, as a result, Plaintiff’s 602 grievance was denied at the third level, which delayed and 

interfered with treatment for Plaintiff’s injuries. Doctor Ola was Plaintiff’s primary care provider and 

was completely informed of the long history of Plaintiff’s request for medical care of his shoulder. 

Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Ola was responsible for ensuring Plaintiff was taken to the hospital for 

shoulder replacement, but he failed to do so. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to endure intense pain 

and suffering.

Doctor Baniga

Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Baniga is responsible for the medical treatment of prisoners at 

PVSP with serious medical needs. Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Baniga is responsible for making 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 11
4

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

medical decisions to grant or deny medical assistance to prisoners seeking medical care on 602 inmate 

grievances. Plaintiff contends that Doctor Baniga’s decisions are made on available information and 

medical need. Doctor Baniga had access to Plaintiff’s medical file and was fully aware that Plaintiff 

had a serious shoulder injury. The file contained numerous requests for care of Plaintiff’s shoulder, 

the need for effective pain medication and the need for a shoulder replacement. Plaintiff further 

alleges that there are two recommendations from two separate surgeons employed by Bakersfield 

Memorial Hospital that determined Plaintiff needed a shoulder replacement. Doctor Baniga had full 

knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical needs, but failed to institute an effective treatment plan. Instead, he 

chose to partially grant Plaintiff’s grievance and opted to continue the ineffective treatment plan of 

Doctor Ola. Plaintiff contends that this constituted a willingness to directly participate in a violation 

of Plaintiff’s right to medical care, which subjected Plaintiff to intense pain and suffering and risk of 

permanent damage to his shoulder. Doctor Baniga was responsible for making adequate medical care 

available on Plaintiff’s grievance, but refused to remedy the wrong and persisted in a course of 

treatment that was ineffective. Plaintiff alleges that he never received therapy, activity modification or 

effective pain medication. 

Charles Young

Plaintiff alleges that Doctor Young is responsible for the medical treatment of prisoners with 

serious medical needs and for making medical decisions to grant or deny medical assistance to 

prisoners seeking medical care on 602 inmate grievances. Doctor Young’s decisions are made on 

available information and medical need. Doctor Young had access to Plaintiff’s medical file and was 

fully aware that Plaintiff had a serious shoulder injury because Plaintiff’s file continued numerous 

requests for care of his shoulder, the need for effective pain medication and the need for shoulder 

replacement. Additionally, there were two recommendations from two separate surgeons employed by 

Bakersfield Memorial Hospital that determined Plaintiff needed a shoulder replacement. Doctor 

Young had full knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical need, but failed to institute effect treatment. Instead, 

he chose to partially grant Plaintiff’s grievance and continue the ineffective treatment plan of Doctor 

Ola. Plaintiff contends that this constituted a willingness to directly participate in the violation of 

Plaintiff’s right to medical care and subjected Plaintiff to pain, suffering and a substantial risk of 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 11
5

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

permanent damage to his shoulder. Doctor Young was responsible for making adequate medical care 

available on Plaintiff’s 602 grievance, but refused to remedy the wrongs. Doctor Young chose a 

course of treatment that was ineffective. Plaintiff never received therapy, activity modification or 

effective pain medication. 

L. D. Zamora

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Zamora is Chief of California Correctional Care Services at the 

third level, i.e. “Director’s Level,” and is responsible for making medical decisions on behalf of the 

Secretary of CDCR regarding whether to deny or grant 602 grievances seeking medical care. 

Defendant Zamora’s decisions are to be made on available information and medical need. Defendant 

Zamora was fully aware that Plaintiff had a serious shoulder injury based on the fact that Plaintiff’s

medical file contained numerous requests for care of his shoulder, the need for adequate pain 

medication and the need for shoulder replacement. In addition, there were two recommendations from 

surgeons employed by Bakersfield Memorial Hospital that determined Plaintiff needed a shoulder 

replacement. Having full knowledge of Plaintiff’s injury and medical needs, Defendant Zamora 

refused to institute an effective treatment plan for Plaintiff. Defendant Zamora allegedly lied on 

Plaintiff’s 602 grievance by stating there was no documentation by the primary care provider to 

indicate the need for a shoulder replacement in Plaintiff’s health care records. Plaintiff alleges that 

this conduct violated his due process rights and constituted a total disregard for his medical needs. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant Zamora’s denial of the 602 grievance established Defendant 

Zamora’s willingness to directly participate and allow the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Even though Defendant Zamora was informed of the violations by way of appeal, he failed to remedy 

the wrongs.

Medical Authorization Review Committee

Plaintiff alleges that the members of the medical authorization review committee are 

responsible for authorizing surgeries for prisoners with serious medical needs. Plaintiff asserts that 

members of the review committee make decisions to grant or deny authorization for surgeries based 

on available information and medical need. Each member of the review committee had access to 

Plaintiff’s medical file and was fully aware that he had a serious shoulder injury that needed corrective 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 11
6

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

surgery. The request for surgery was brought before the committee based on the recommendations of 

two surgeons that Plaintiff needed a shoulder replacement. Having full knowledge of Plaintiff’s injury 

and his need for surgery, the review committee refused to provide the necessary care. Instead, the 

review committee disregarded Plaintiff’s need and he was compelled to suffer pain and mental 

anguish. Plaintiff asserts that each member of the review committee has a medical background and 

knew that Plaintiff’s condition significantly affected his activities of daily living and that he suffered 

from chronic pain. Plaintiff alleges that the review committee failed to carry out its responsibility to 

make adequate medical care available. 

Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, along with compensatory and punitive damages against the 

individual defendants. 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a 

cognizable claim. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff a final opportunity to 

amend his claims. To assist Plaintiff, the Court provides the following pleading and legal standards 

relevant to his claims. 

A. Pleading Standards

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed 

factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, 

supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). 

While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 556–557.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to set forth the necessary facts to state a claim that is plausible on its 

face. Plaintiff’s complaint lacks basic details, such as what happened, when it happened and who was 

involved. Plaintiff’s generalized and conclusory statements and recitals of the elements of a claim are

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 11
7

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

not sufficient. If Plaintiff elects to amend his complaint, he must provide a short and plain statement 

of the facts demonstrating that he is entitled to relief. 

2. Eleventh Amendment and Official Capacity

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to bring a claim for damages against defendants in their official 

capacities, he may not do so. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits for monetary damages against a 

State, its agencies, and state officials acting in their official capacities. Aholelei v. Dep’t of Public 

Safety, 488 F.3d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007). As such, the Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for 

monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities.

B. Legal Standards

1. Supervisory Liability

Plaintiff appears to bring suit against Defendant Beard based on his role as supervisor. 

However, supervisory personnel may not be held liable under section 1983 for the actions of 

subordinate employees based on respondeat superior or vicarious liability. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 

F.3d 967, 977 (9th Cir.2013); accord Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. and Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062, 

1074–75 (9th Cir.2013); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 915–16 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). 

“A supervisor may be liable only if (1) he or she is personally involved in the constitutional 

deprivation, or (2) there is a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct 

and the constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord

Lemire, 726 F.3d at 1074–75; Lacey, 693 F.3d at 915–16. “Under the latter theory, supervisory 

liability exists even without overt personal participation in the offensive act if supervisory officials 

implement a policy so deficient that the policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the 

moving force of a constitutional violation.” Crowley, 734 F.3d at 977 (citing Hansen v. Black, 885 

F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir.1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Beard. Plaintiff alleges that 

Defendant Beard was aware of Plaintiff’s condition because he reviewed Plaintiff's grievances at the 

third level of review. However, Plaintiff later contradicts this assertion by claiming that Defendant 

Zamora was responsible for making medical decisions on behalf of Secretary Beard at the third level 

of review. 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 7 of 11
8

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. Grievance Procedure

Plaintiff appears to bring suit against Defendant Zamora based on the denial of Plaintiff’s 

inmate appeal. Plaintiff cannot pursue any claims against staff relating to their involvement in the 

administrative review of his inmate appeals. The existence of an inmate appeals process does not 

create a protected liberty interest upon which Plaintiff may base a claim that he was denied a particular 

result or that the appeals process was deficient. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.2003); 

Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). To state a claim under section 1983, Plaintiff must 

demonstrate personal involvement in the underlying violation of his rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677; 

Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir.2002), and liability may not be based merely on 

Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the administrative process or a decision on an appeal, Ramirez, 334 

F.3d at 860; Mann, 855 F.2d at 640.

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim against Defendant Zamora based on the denial of his 

inmate appeal. Plaintiff claims that Defendant Zamora lied when basing the denial of Plaintiff’s 

grievance on a lack of documentation by Plaintiff’s primary care providers indicating the need for a 

shoulder replacement. Plaintiff’s allegations against his primary care providers support Defendant 

Zamora’s determination that they did not recommend shoulder surgery. Plaintiff’s disagreement with 

his medical providers is discussed below in greater detail. 

3. Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

“[T]o maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on prison medical treatment, an inmate 

must show ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.’” Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 

(9th Cir.2006) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251

(1976)). The two part test for deliberate indifference requires the plaintiff to show (1) “a ‘serious 

medical need’ by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner’s condition could result in further 

significant injury or the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’” and (2) “the defendant’s 

response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096; Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012).

Deliberate indifference is shown where the official is aware of a serious medical need and fails 

to adequately respond. Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 8 of 11
9

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

“Deliberate indifference is a high legal standard.” Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1019; Toguchi v. Chung, 391 

F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004). The prison official must be aware of facts from which he could make 

an inference that “a substantial risk of serious harm exists” and he must make the inference. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

Doctor Ola

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 

against Defendant Ola. Plaintiff’s allegations involving Defendant Ola are conclusory and lack 

sufficient factual detail. At best, Plaintiff has alleged a difference of opinion regarding Defendant 

Ola’s treatment plan and the need for surgery. This is not sufficient to state a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim. Toguchi, 391 F.3d at 1057–58, 1060 (a difference of opinion between a healthcare 

professional and a prisoner does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference; negligence in 

diagnosing or treating a medical condition also does not amount to deliberate indifference).

Plaintiff will be given leave to cure these deficiencies. 

Doctor Baniga

Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Baniga. 

Plaintiff admits that Defendant Baniga partially granted his grievance and agreed with the provided

treatment plan. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the plan is not sufficient to state a constitutional 

violation. A difference of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical authorities regarding 

treatment does not give rise to a section 1983 claim. Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th 

Cir. 1981); Mayfield v. Craven, 433 F.2d 873, 874 (9th Cir. 1970). Further, Plaintiff fails to allege 

that Defendant Baniga was responsible for the plan’s implementation or for Plaintiff’s alleged failure 

to receive physical therapy, effective pain medication or activity modification. Plaintiff’s allegations 

are conclusory and fail to provide sufficient factual detail. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure these 

deficiencies. 

Charles Young

As with Doctor Baniga, Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable deliberate indifference claim against 

Defendant Young. Plaintiff admits that Defendant Young partially granted his grievance and agreed 

with the provided treatment plan. To the extent Plaintiff disagreed with the plan, his disagreement is 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 9 of 11
10

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

not sufficient to state a constitutional violation. Franklin, 662 F.2d at 1344; Mayfield, 433 F.2d at 

874. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant Young was responsible for the plan’s 

implementation or for Plaintiff’s alleged failure to receive physical therapy, effective pain medication 

or activity modification. Plaintiff’s allegations are conclusory and fail to provide sufficient factual 

detail. Plaintiff will be given leave to cure these deficiencies.

Medical Authorization Review Committee

Plaintiff disagrees with the Medical Authorization Review Committee’s denial of his shoulder 

surgery. As noted above, a difference of opinion between a prisoner and prison medical authorities as 

to what treatment is proper and necessary does not give rise to section 1983 claim. Mayfield, 433 F.2d 

at 874. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and fails to state a 

cognizable claim. Although Plaintiff has been granted multiple opportunities to cure the deficiencies 

in his complaint, in an abundance of caution the Court will grant Plaintiff one more opportunity to 

cure the identified deficiencies in his complaint. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 

678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49. 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

(citations omitted). 

Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims 

in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” 

complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 

Lacey, 693 F.3d at 927. Therefore, Plaintiff’s amended complaint must be “complete in itself without 

reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 220. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a complaint form; 

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 10 of 11
11

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. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim; 

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a third

amended complaint; and

4. If Plaintiff fails to file a third amended complaint in compliance with this order, this 

action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00516-DAD-BAM Document 20 Filed 07/23/15 Page 11 of 11