Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00115/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00115-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JON LLOYD HOUSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0115 CKD P 

ORDER

Plaintiff is a Sacramento County Jail prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United 

States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without 

funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). 

Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s 

income credited to plaintiff’s prison trust account. These payments shall be collected and 

Case 2:16-cv-00115-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/25/16 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

27

28

2

forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff’s 

account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

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). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[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 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

The court has screened plaintiff’s February 3, 2015 second amended complaint, the 

operative complaint in this action, and finds that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief 

Case 2:16-cv-00115-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/25/16 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

27

28

3

can be granted. Plaintiff asserts he slipped and fell on a wet bathroom floor, but fails to indicate 

how this amounts to a violation of his federal rights. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must 

be dismissed. Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be given one opportunity to amend his 

complaint to identify an actionable claim.

If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended 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). Plaintiff has Constitutional rights with respect to 

conditions of confinement arising under the Eighth Amendment. A violation of the Eighth 

Amendment occurs if plaintiff is injured as a result of a defendant’s deliberate indifference to a 

substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). 

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s third amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. The fee 

shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court’s order to the Sacramento County Sheriff 

filed concurrently herewith.

3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed. 

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

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 third complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; failure to file a third

/////

Case 2:16-cv-00115-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/25/16 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

27

28

4

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed.

Dated: February 25, 2016

1

hous0115.14

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00115-CKD Document 10 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4