Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00828/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00828-3/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

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

Plaintiff Rafael Guzman is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on May 21, 2012. On September 23, 2013, the Court 

screened the complaint and found Plaintiff stated a cognizable claim of failure to protect against 

Defendant Snyder only. Plaintiff was granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint or notify 

the Court of intent to proceed on the cognizable claim only. 

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On November 4, 2013, the 

undersigned issued Findings and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of Defendants Warden 

John Marshall and correctional officer Frazier from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim. 

On December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections.

RAFAEL GUZMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN MARSHALL, et. al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 

Case 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 3
2

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

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that he states a cognizable claim against Defendants 

Marshall and Frazier and sets forth additional factual allegations as to each Defendant that was not set 

forth in his prior complaint. 

In light of the additional allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s objections, and in the interest of 

justice, the undersigned will vacate the Findings and Recommendations and grant Plaintiff one 

additional opportunity to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is advised that in the future, the 

Court will consider only the factual allegations made in the complaint so he is encouraged to state 

completely his claims in his Second Amended Complaint or his claims will be subject to dismissal. 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief, Fed R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each 

named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. See

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In addition, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this 

suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 

(7th Cir. 2007). 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. Trowmbly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled in part on other grounds, 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Cir. 1987), and must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” 

Local Rule 220.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, issued November 4, 2013, are vacated;

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order in which to file 

his second amended complaint; and

///

///

///

Case 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 3
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

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will re-issue the Findings and 

Recommendations recommending dismissal Defendants Marshall and Frazier from the action for 

failure to state a cognizable claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2013 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00828-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 12/23/13 Page 3 of 3