Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01735/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01735-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTIN FELICIANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

IGBINOSA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. 1-2)

30 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff claims he received inadequate medical care to for his Valley Fever. Because the 

complaint fails to provide any factual allegations specific to the claims and fails to link any of the 

individuals named as defendants to any factual allegations, this action is DISMISSED with leave 

to amend.

I. Screening Requirement

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, malicious, 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); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). If an action is dismissed on one of these three basis, a strike is imposed 

per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An inmate who has had three or more prior actions or appeals dismissed 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 11
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

as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and has 

not alleged imminent danger of serious physical injury does not qualify to proceed in forma 

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Richey v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2015).

II. Summary of Plaintiff=s Complaint

Plaintiff complains of incidents that apparently occurred at Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

He names Dr. Igbinosa, Darren Bright, Paul Brazelton, Peter Lamb, Ifemoa Ogbehi, and Luomg 

Nguyen as defendants in this action and seeks monetary damages.

The complaint in this action is nearly identical to that filed in a number of actions by 

persons who contracted Valley Fever while incarcerated by California Department of 

Rehabilitation and Corrections. (See Smith, et al. v. Schwarzenegger, et al., 1:14-cv-0060-LJOSAB (PC).) It appears that Plaintiff’s allegations are distinguishable from Smith only as to the 

claims that he raises: Deliberate Indifference to a Serious Medical Need (which he asserts against 

“Defendants” generally and specifically against Defendant “Lam” (Doc. 1-2, SAC, 18:9-19:5)); 

Negligence (which he asserts specifically against Defendants “Bright” and “Lam” (id., at 19:6-

26)); and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (which he asserts against “Defendant” (id., 

at 19:27-20:11)).

However, Plaintiff has not stated any facts about any medical treatment he received that 

he believes was inappropriate, or about proper treatment that was not provided to him. Further, 

Plaintiff fails to link any of the persons he named as defendants to his allegations. Plaintiff may 

be able to correct the deficiencies in his pleading so as to state a cognizable claim. 

III. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

"Rule 8(a)'s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions," none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). A complaint must contain "a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). 

"Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 11
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

the grounds upon which it rests." Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

Detailed factual allegations are not required, but A[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), quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). 

Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to >state a claim that is 

plausible on its face.=@ Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual 

allegations are accepted as true, but legal conclusions are not. Iqbal. at 678; see also Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556-557. 

While Aplaintiffs [now] face a higher burden of pleadings facts . . . ,@ Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 

580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), the pleadings of pro se prisoners are still construed liberally 

and are afforded the benefit of any doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

However, "the liberal pleading standard . . . applies only to a plaintiff's factual allegations," Neitze 

v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989), "a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may 

not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled," Bruns v. Nat'l Credit 

Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997) quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982), and courts are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences, Doe I v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). The “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and

“facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of satisfying the 

plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.

If he chooses to file a first amended complaint, Plaintiff should make it as concise as 

possible and it must be no more than twenty pages long. He should merely state which of his 

constitutional rights he feels were violated by each defendant and what he contends each 

defendant did wrong. 

2. Linkage Requirement

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes to 

be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of 

any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 11
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

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or 

other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between 

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by Plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that A[a] person >subjects= another to the deprivation of a 

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates 

in another=s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that 

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.@ Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th 

Cir. 1978). In order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, Plaintiff must link each named 

defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of Plaintiff=s 

federal rights. 

As previously mentioned, the complaint not only fails to state any factual allegations 

regarding the deficiencies in medical treatment for his Valley Fever, but also fails to link any of 

the individuals he named as defendants to any allegations whatsoever. Plaintiff must clearly state 

which defendant(s) he feels are responsible for each violation of his constitutional rights and their 

factual basis as his complaint must put each defendant on notice of Plaintiff=s claims against him 

or her. See Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004).

3. Exhibits

Plaintiff's Complaint is comprised of twenty pages of allegations followed by twenty-six 

pages of exhibits. The Court is not a repository for the parties' evidence. Originals, or copies of 

evidence (i.e., prison or medical records, witness affidavits, etc.) need not be submitted until the 

course of litigation brings the evidence into question (for example, on a motion for summary 

judgment, at trial, or when requested by the Court). If Plaintiff attaches exhibits to his amended 

complaint, each exhibit must be specifically referenced. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 10(c). For example, 

Plaintiff must state "see Exhibit A" or something similar in order to direct the Court to the 

specific exhibit Plaintiff is referencing. Further, if the exhibit consists of more than one page, 

Plaintiff must reference the specific page of the exhibit (i.e. "See Exhibit A, page 3"). 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 11
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

5

At this point, the submission of evidence is premature as Plaintiff is only required to state 

a prima facie claim for relief. Plaintiff is reminded that, for screening purposes, the Court must 

assume his factual allegations are true, except where contradicted by attachments to the 

complaint. It is unnecessary for a plaintiff to submit exhibits in support of the allegations in a 

complaint. Thus, if Plaintiff chooses to file a first amended complaint, he should simply state the

facts upon which he alleges a defendant has violated his constitutional rights and should not

submit exhibits. 

IV. Claims for Relief

A. Eighth Amendment -- Medical Care

To maintain an Eighth Amendment claim based on medical care in prison, a plaintiff must 

first Ashow a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat a prisoner=s condition 

could result in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Second, 

the plaintiff must show the defendants= response to the need was deliberately indifferent.@ 

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 

1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted)). 

The existence of a condition or injury that a reasonable doctor would find important and 

worthy of comment or treatment, the presence of a medical condition that significantly affects an 

individual=s daily activities, and the existence of chronic or substantial pain are indications of a 

serious medical need. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing McGuckin v. 

Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc. 

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (quotation marks omitted); Doty v. 

County of Lassen, 37 F.3d 540, 546 n.3 (9th Cir. 1994). For screening purposes, Plaintiff's lower 

back pain is accepted as a serious medical need. 

Deliberate indifference is Aa state of mind more blameworthy than negligence@ and 

Arequires >more than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner=s interests or safety.=@ Farmer, 511 

U.S. at 835 (quoting Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319). ADeliberate indifference is a high legal standard.@ 

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir.2004). AUnder this standard, the prison official 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 5 of 11
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

6

must not only >be aware of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial 

risk of serious harm exists,= but that person >must also draw the inference.=@ Id. at 1057 (quoting 

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). A>If a prison official should have been aware of the risk, but was not, 

then the official has not violated the Eighth Amendment, no matter how severe the risk.=@ Id.

(quoting Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nevada, 290 F.3d 1175, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

B. Claims Under California Law

1. California Tort Claims Act 

The California Tort Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) prohibits a plaintiff from 

filing suit, raising state law claims, against a public employee or entity unless the plaintiff first 

presented the claim to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. Also, 

the Board must have acted on the claim or the time for doing so expired. “The Tort Claims Act 

requires that any civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the 

pertinent public entity.” Munoz v. California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767, 1776 (1995). The purpose of 

this requirement is “to provide the public entity sufficient information to enable it to adequately 

investigate claims and to settle them, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation.” City of 

San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.3d 447, 455 (1974) (citations omitted). Compliance with this 

“claim presentation requirement” constitutes an element of a cause of action for damages against 

a public entity or official. State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1244 (2004). Thus, 

in the state courts, “failure to allege facts demonstrating or excusing compliance with the claim 

presentation requirement subjects a claim against a public entity to a demurrer for failure to state 

a cause of action.” Id. at 1239 (fn.omitted).

Federal courts likewise must require compliance with the CTCA for pendant state law 

claims that seek damages against state public employees or entities. Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 

702, 704 (9th Cir.1969); Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 

(9th Cir.1995). State tort claims included in a federal action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

may proceed only if the claims were first presented to the state in compliance with the claim 

presentation requirement. Karim–Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, 627 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 6 of 11
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

7

(9th Cir.1988); Butler v. Los Angeles County, 617 F.Supp.2d 994, 1001 (C.D.Cal.2008).

Plaintiff fails to allege compliance with the CTCA in his complaint. Thus, he may not 

proceed on these claims until he complies. 

C. Negligence 

“An action in negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal 

duty, that the defendant breached the duty, and that the breach was a proximate or legal cause of 

injuries suffered by the plaintiff. [Citations.]” Regents of the Univ. of California v. Superior 

Court of Los Angeles Cty., 240 Cal. App. 4th 1296, 1310, 193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 447, 458 (2015), 

reh'g denied (Oct. 26, 2015) quoting Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 

666, 673, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207 (Ann M.) [disapproved on another ground in Reid v. 

Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 527, fn. 5, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 327, 235 P.3d 988].) 

"In order to establish liability on a negligence theory, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, 

causation and damages. The threshold element of a cause of action for negligence is the existence 

of a duty to use due care toward an interest of another that enjoys legal protection against 

unintentional invasion. Whether this essential prerequisite to a negligence cause of action has 

been satisfied in a particular case is a question of law to be resolved by the court. To say that 

someone owes another a duty of care is a shorthand statement of a conclusion, rather than an aid 

to analysis in itself. [D]uty is not sacrosanct in itself, but only an expression of the sum total of 

those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to 

protection. [L]egal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely conclusory expressions

that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done.” Los Angeles 

Memorial Coliseum Commission v. Insomaniac, Inc. 233 Cal.App.4th 803, 908 (2015) (citations 

and quotations omitted).

Plaintiff has failed to state any allegations to meet the elements of a negligence claim 

under California Law.

D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”) 

Under California law, the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 7 of 11
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

8

extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless 

disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or 

extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by 

the defendant’s outrageous conduct. Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 571 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quotation marks omitted); Tekkle v. United States, 567 F.3d 554, 855 (9th Cir. 2007); Simo v. 

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees, 322 F.3d 602, 621-22 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Conduct is outrageous if it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a 

civilized community. Corales, 567 F.3d at 571; Tekkle, 511 F.3d at 855; Simo, 322 F.3d at 622

In addition to the requirement that the conduct be intentional and outrageous, the conduct must 

have been directed at Plaintiff or occur in the presence of Plaintiff, and the Defendant must have 

been aware of his presence. Simo, 322 F.3d at 622. Plaintiff fails to state any facts demonstrating

the elements of the claim.

E. Supplemental Jurisdiction

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367(a), in any civil action in which the district court has original 

jurisdiction, the district court Ashall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims in the 

action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under 

Article III,@ except as provided in subsections (b) and (c). A[O]nce judicial power exists under '

1367(a), retention of supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 1367(c) is 

discretionary.@ Acri v. Varian Assoc., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). AThe district court 

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . the 

district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.@ 28 U.S.C. '

1367(c)(3). The Supreme Court has cautioned that Aif the federal claims are dismissed before 

trial, . . . the state claims should be dismissed as well.@ United Mine Workers of America v.

Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966). 

If Plaintiff has complied with the CTCA, jurisdiction over his claims under California law 

will only be exercised as long as he has federal claims pending.

///

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 8 of 11
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

9

F. Supervisory Liability

Generally, supervisory personnel are not liable under section 1983 for the actions of their 

employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Therefore, when a named defendant holds a 

supervisory position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional violation must be 

specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 

589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). To state a claim for relief 

under section 1983 based on a theory of supervisory liability, Plaintiff must allege some facts that 

would support a claim that supervisory defendants either: personally participated in the alleged 

deprivation of constitutional rights; knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them; or 

promulgated or "implemented a policy so deficient that the policy 'itself is a repudiation of 

constitutional rights' and is 'the moving force of the constitutional violation.'" Hansen v. Black, 

885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 

(9th Cir. 1989). Under section 1983, liability may not be imposed on supervisory personnel for 

the actions of their employees under a theory of respondeat superior. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. "In 

a § 1983 suit or a Bivens action - where masters do not answer for the torts of their servants - the 

term 'supervisory liability' is a misnomer." Id. Knowledge and acquiescence of a subordinate's 

misconduct is insufficient to establish liability; each government official is only liable for his or 

her own misconduct. Id. 

A>[B]are assertions . . . amount[ing] to nothing more than a Aformulaic recitation of the

elements@ of a constitutional discrimination claim,= for the purposes of ruling on a motion to 

dismiss [and thus also for screening purposes], are not entitled to an assumption of truth.@ Moss, 

572 F.3d at 969 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 1951 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)). ASuch 

allegations are not to be discounted because they are >unrealistic or nonsensical,= but rather 

because they do nothing more than state a legal conclusion B even if that conclusion is cast in the 

form of a factual allegation.@ Id. Thus, any allegations that supervisory personnel such as a 

Warden or the CDCR Chief Medical Officer violated Plaintiff's rights and are somehow liable 

because of the acts of those under his or her supervision does not amount to a cognizable claim. 

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 9 of 11
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

10

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed with leave to file a first

amended complaint within thirty days. If Plaintiff decides not to pursue this action, he must file a 

voluntary dismissal within that same time. Plaintiff must demonstrate in any first 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 first 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 first 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) quoting Conley v. 

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 . . . ." Twombly, 550 U.S. 127, 555 

(2007) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff is further advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original, Lacey v. 

Maricopa County, Nos. 09-15806, 09-15703, 2012 WL 3711591, at *1 n.1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 

2012) (en banc), and must be "complete in itself without reference to the prior or superceded 

pleading," Local Rule 220. 

The Court provides Plaintiff with one, final opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies 

identified by the Court in this order. 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 first

amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no "buckshot"

complaints). Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk's Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 10 of 11
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

11

3. Within 30 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must file a first

amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in this order or 

a notice of voluntary dismissal; and

4. 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: March 3, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT Document 11 Filed 03/03/16 Page 11 of 11