Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01126/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01126-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY DEWITT HUNTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01126-AWI-SMS (PC)

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 27, 2010

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING THE FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO FILE A

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Doc. 23.)

Plaintiff Leroy Dewitt Hunter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 27, 2010, the Court issued

Findings and Recommendations that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and

Recommendations providing detail so as to clarify the amount of force he was subjected to and the

extent of his injuries – which, when combined with the allegations in the First Amended Complaint,

appears to show that he may be able to state a cognizable claim. 

The Findings and Recommendations which issued January 27, 2010 should be vacated and

Plaintiff should have opportunity to file a second amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff is reminded that a second amended 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, ___ U.S. ___,

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 

1

Case 1:07-cv-01126-AWI-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/04/10 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

27

28

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

on its face.’” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual

allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusion are not. Id. at 1949.

Plaintiff must demonstrate in anysecond amended complaint 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). The second amended complaint must allege in specific terms how each named

defendant is involved. There can be no liability under section 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).

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Such a short and

plain statement must “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) quotingConleyv. Gibson,

355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient]

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

127, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff is further advised that a second amended complaint supercedes the original

complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded

pleading,” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of action alleged in an original

complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint arewaived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing

to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir. 1981)); accord Forsyth, 114 F.3d at

1474.

The Court provides Plaintiff with opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies identified by

the Court in the January 27, 2010 Findings and Recommendations. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446,

1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated

claims in his second amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no

“buckshot” complaints).

2

Case 1:07-cv-01126-AWI-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/04/10 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

27

28

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendationswhich issued January27, 2010 areVACATED; 

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, if Plaintiff

needs an extension of time to comply with this order, Plaintiff shall file a motion

seeking an extension of time no later than thirty days from the date of service of this

order;

3. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

4. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a

second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the

Findings and Recommendations which issued January 27, 2010; and 

5. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for failure to

obey a court order and for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:07-cv-01126-AWI-SKO Document 26 Filed 05/04/10 Page 3 of 3