Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01309/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01309-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN K. RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TODD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1309 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO JOIN

ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS TO CASE (Doc.

8.) 

 Bryan K. Richardson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 18, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Plaintiff

moved to add or join 40 additional Defendants. 

A plaintiff may amend his complaint once “as a matter of course,” and without leave of

Court, before a response has been filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a); Bonn v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9 Cir. 1995). Leave of Court is th

Case 1:05-cv-01309-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 08/01/06 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

27

28

2

required for all other amendments. Rule Civ. P. 15(a). While the Court should freely give leave

to amend if justice requires, the Court may deny leave to amend if the amendment would be

futile or subject to dismissal. Bonn, 59 F.3d at 845; Saul v. United States, 928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th

Cir. 1991).

In this case, the Defendants have not yet made an appearance in the action and Plaintiff

has not yet filed an Amended Complaint. Thus, permission is not necessary at this time. 

Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that any complaint filed must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a) (emphasis added). “Such a statement

must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon

which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

Further, Plaintiff must have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to each

claim raised in the Complaint prior to his initiation of this action. In the event that certain claims

were not exhausted before Plaintiff initiated suit, those claims will be dismissed as not having

been exhausted. Exhaustion must occur prior to filing suit. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198,

1199-1201 (9th Cir.2002). 

Plaintiff must demonstrate in the Amended Complaint how the conditions complained of

resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. See, Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9 Cir. th

1980). The Amended Complaint must specifically state how each Defendant is involved. 

Further, 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 (9 Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 th

F.2d 740, 743 (9 Cir. 1978). th

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir. th

1967). Once an Amended Complaint is filed, the original Complaint no longer serves any

function in the case. Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint, each

Case 1:05-cv-01309-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 08/01/06 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

27

28

3

claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to add/join Defendants is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 28, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01309-AWI -SMS Document 11 Filed 08/01/06 Page 3 of 3