Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01326-2/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

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 1326 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Y. A. GONZALES,

Defendant.

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 original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the

California Department of Corrections at Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this civil rights

action against Defendant Correctional Sergeant Y. A. Gonzales, an employee of the Department

of Corrections at Pleasant Valley.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that Defendant Gonzales falsely accused

Plaintiff of an attempted escape, and filed a false incident report charging Plaintiff with

attempted escape. The factual allegations in this complaint consist of a factual defense to the

charge.

In Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 644 (1997), the United States Supreme Court

Case 1:05-cv-01326-AWI-JLT Document 21 Filed 07/18/06 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

2

applied the doctrine articulated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), to prison

disciplinary hearings. In Heck, the Court held that a state prisoner’s claim for damages for

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a

judgment in favor of plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence, unless the prisoner can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has previously been

invalidated. 512 U.S. at 487. In applying the principle to the facts of Balisok, the Court held

that a claim challenging the procedures used in a prison disciplinary hearing, even if such a

claim seeks money damages and no injunctive relief, is not cognizable under § 1983 if the nature

of the inmate’s allegations are such that, if proven, would necessarily imply the invalidity of the

result of the prison disciplinary hearing. 520 U.S. at 646. Because such a challenge, if

successful, would invalidate the duration of the inmate’s confinement, it is properly brought as a

habeas corpus petition and not under § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 500 (1973).

Here, Plaintiff alleges that the charges brought against him by Defendant Gonzales were

false. Plaintiff specifically alleges that Gonzales filed a “false incident report.” Such an

allegation, if true, necessarily implies the invalidity of Plaintiff’s conviction. Plaintiff may must

allege that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise invalidated before he can

bring a civil rights action. Plaintiff has not done so, and the complaint must be dismissed. 

Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an 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.

Case 1:05-cv-01326-AWI-JLT Document 21 Filed 07/18/06 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

3

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 complaint is dismissed; and

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

first 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 assigned this case and must be labeled "First 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: July 18, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01326-AWI-JLT Document 21 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 3