Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00535/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00535-2/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

PEDRO GONZALES,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0535 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

C/O SKELLENGER,

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 Ironwood State Prison, brings this civil rights

action against defendant Correctional Officer Skellenger, an employee of the Department of

Corrections at North Kern State Prison. The conduct that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred at

North Kern.

Plaintiff’s sole claim in this complaint is that defendant directed derogatory

statements at plaintiff. Specifically, defendant referred to plaintiff as a homosexual, using slang

terms. Plaintiff alleges no other conduct by defendant. 

Allegations of threats and harassment do not state a claim cognizable under 42

Case 1:05-cv-00535-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 03/08/06 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

U.S.C § 1983. See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996)(assaultive comments by

prison guard not enough to implicate Eighth Amendment); Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th

Cir. 1987)(mere threat does not constitute constitutional wrong). Plaintiff’s allegations do not

rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(prisoners cannot bring

civil suits in federal court for mental or emotional injuries suffered while incarcerated unless

they first show that they suffered physical injury). Plaintiff has therefore failed to allege facts

sufficient to state a claim for relief. The complaint must therefore 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.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00535-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 03/08/06 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

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"; plaintiff

must file an original and two copies of the 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: March 8, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00535-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 03/08/06 Page 3 of 3