Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00518/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00518-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CEDRIC GREENE,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0518 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

B. SANDERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state 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).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint, filed in response to an earlier order

dismsising the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of

Corrections at CCI Tehachapi, brings this civil rights action against 4 individual defendants employed

by the Department of Corrections at CCI Tehachapi. 

In the order dismissing the original complait, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s statement of claim

consisted of a single paragraph, setting forth generalized allegations of excessive force and false

charges. Plaintiff was advised that the statute under which this action proceeds plainly 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 Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978);

Case 1:06-cv-00518-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another

to the deprivation 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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743

(9th Cir. 1978).

The court found the allegations in plaintiff's complaint to be vague and conclusory. Plaintiff was

specifically advised that he must link individual defendants with specific conduct that constitutes a

violation. 

In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff identifies four individual defendants, and claims 

that “this complaint concerns a case of misuse, unlawful and excessive use of force. It also concerns a

denial of access to the courts. Officials furthermore knowingly misprinted legal documents in attempts

to justify the violations. Based on the foregoing, this case concerns violations of state, federal, and

constitutional violations.”

Plaintiff may not hold defendants liable simply by setting forth legal claims. Plaintiff was

specifically advised in the earlier order dismissing his complaint, and is again advised. The statute

plainly 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 Services,

436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a]

person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation 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 complaint is made.” Johnson v.

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

The Court finds the allegations in plaintiff's first amended complaint, as it did the allegations in

the original complaint, to be vague and conclusory. The Court has determined that the complaint does

not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal

Case 1:06-cv-00518-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the

claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community 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 will, however, grant leave to file a second

amended complaint.

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 first amended complaint is dismissed; and

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

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number

Case 1:06-cv-00518-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 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

4

assigned this case and must be labeled "Second 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 25, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00518-OWW -WMW Document 12 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 4