Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03015/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-03015-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ABDUL GILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-03015 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and in forma pauperis. This proceeding was 

referred to this court by E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(21). 

 The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if the 

action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). 

 The court’s prior order described the standard for finding a claim to be legally frivolous. 

ECF No. 4 at 1-2. The order then dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the State defendants 

without leave to amend, because under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he is 

not allowed to sue the State of California, the California Health and Human Services Agency and 

the California Department of Social Services. ECF No. 4 at 3. The court granted plaintiff leave 

to amend his claims against Sacramento County. Id., at 4. 

Case 2:14-cv-03015-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 02/17/15 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 

27 

28 

2

 Plaintiff has now amended his complaint. ECF No. 5. The amended complaint, however, 

does not indicate who the defendants are. The caption names the same State defendants that 

plaintiff is not permitted to sue, and it no longer includes the County. 

 In addition, the complaint alleges no facts that show that plaintiff has suffered a legal 

wrong, that he is entitled to any relief, or that this federal district court has jurisdiction to consider 

his case. The complaint does allege that plaintiff’s medical benefits were terminated. It sets forth 

the wrenching consequences of plaintiff’s inability to obtain desperately needed medical help. 

However, this federal district court is powerless to compel the State or its agencies to comply 

with State laws or regulations. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 

(1984). In a case such as this, the federal district court can provide relief only if the plaintiff has 

suffered a legal wrong because a state official or municipal entity (or other “person” within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983), violated the federal Constitution or laws. See Frew ex rel. Frew v. 

Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004) (“[t]o ensure the enforcement of federal law, . . . the Eleventh 

Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in 

violation of federal law”). 

 The complaint does not, for example, allege facts showing that the terminated medical 

benefits were entitlements and that they were terminated by a state official (or a municipal entity 

such as the County, or municipal official), without a hearing, or that the official otherwise 

deprived plaintiff of the due process of law. See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 

(termination of State welfare benefits requires a pre-termination hearing in order to comply with 

Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). With no such 

factual allegations, the complaint must be dismissed. 

The court will, however, again grant plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. If 

plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he must say why federal jurisdiction exists, that is, what 

federal statute authorizes this court to consider this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). Further, the 

complaint must state who the defendants are. It is not sufficient to name defendants in the 

caption, they must be named in the body of the complaint, in a separate section entitled “The 

Parties” or “The Defendants.” The complaint must allege in specific terms the conduct the 

Case 2:14-cv-03015-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 02/17/15 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 

27 

28 

3

defendants engaged in, and how that conduct violated his rights under the federal Constitution or 

laws. Also, plaintiff may not name the State defendants from his original complaint, as those 

defendants have been dismissed without leave to amend. 

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

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. E.D. Cal. R. 220. An amended complaint must 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 (30) days from the date of service of this order to file an 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, 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 “Second 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. 

DATED: February 17, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-03015-KJM-AC Document 6 Filed 02/17/15 Page 3 of 3