Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00876/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00876-2/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

ANTHONY LLOYD HUGHES,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0876 LJO WMW PC

vs. ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

 FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

MR. CLAYPOOL, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding prose in a civil rights action 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 complaint. Plaintiff, formerly in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at Pleasant Valley State Prison, brings this civil

rights action against defendant Claypool and Yates, employees of the CDCR at Pleasant Valley

State Prison. 

Plaintiff’s claim in the complaint is that on July 17, 2005, he was subjected sexual

battery by Defendant Claypool. The July 11, 2006, complaint states a claim for relief against

Defendant Claypool.

As to Defendant Warden Yates, liability may be imposed on supervisory defendants (such

as Yates) under § 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated in the deprivation of

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 10 Filed 03/31/08 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

constitutional rights or (2) the supervisor knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. 

Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. Lst, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.

1989). Plaintiff has not alleged any facts indicating that defendant Yates participated in, or

knew of and failed to prevent, the alleged wrongs. 

The Court will provide Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint that corrects

the defects as to Defendant Yates. Should Plaintiff fail to file an amended complaint, this action

will proceed against Defendant Claypool, and the Court will recommend that Defendant Yates be

dismissed.

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 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

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 10 Filed 03/31/08 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

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." 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 10 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3