Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05078/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05078-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD DAVID ESTRADA,

Plaintiff, CV F 02 5078 REC WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

STEVE CAMBRA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the second amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in

the custody of the California Department of Corrections at Avenal State Prison brings this civil

rights action against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections

at various facilities. 

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). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have

been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action

Case 1:02-cv-05078-REC-WMW Document 40 Filed 05/02/05 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

or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. §

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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also

Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing

a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

The second amended complaint names 117 individual defendants. It consists of

111 pages of rambling narrative, interspersed with legal arguments. Though Plaintiff refers to

“grounds for relief,” the court can not discern specific claims. 

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

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 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 complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740,

Case 1:02-cv-05078-REC-WMW Document 40 Filed 05/02/05 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

743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for a “short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the

principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice

of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an

elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement

sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

The court will provide plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint

curing these deficiencies. In amending his complaint, plaintiff is informed that his allegations

should not be lengthy or overly-detailed. Rather, as previously stated, plaintiff need only set

forth enough facts so that each defendant is on notice as to what he or she did or did not do that

plaintiff believes violated his rights. 

 The court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, with leave to

amend, for failure to comply with the linkage requirements of section1983 and for failure to

comply with Rule 8(a). The court has provided plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to

be applicable to his claims and will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended

complaint. In drafting his amended complaint, plaintiff is cautioned that it is his responsibility to

organize his complaint so that defendants and the court can readily ascertain which claims

plaintiff is pursuing against which defendants.

Finally, plaintiff is advised Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended

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

Case 1:02-cv-05078-REC-WMW Document 40 Filed 05/02/05 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

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The second amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall

file an amended complaint;

4. The failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order

may result in an order striking the amended complaint from the record;

and

5. The failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05078-REC-WMW Document 40 Filed 05/02/05 Page 4 of 4