Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366-2/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

WILLIAM HENRY PRICE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2366 DFL CMK P

vs.

PAUL T. PERSONS, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 23, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended

complaint.

I. Screening Plaintiff’s Complaint

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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 or malicious,” that 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. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 25 Filed 05/30/06 Page 1 of 4
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

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based

on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.

See Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

II. Plaintiff’s Complaint

The gist of plaintiff’s amended complaint appears to be this: plaintiff was a

defendant in a criminal action; defendants prevented plaintiff from presenting an adequate

defense; prevented him from accessing investigators and he was convicted. Plaintiff appears to

sue defendants under a negligence theory. Plaintiff also asserts that he was discriminated against

based on his race.

A. No Cause of Action for Negligence Claims

To the extent that plaintiff brings a negligence claim against defendants, he has

failed to state a cognizable civil rights action. Section 1893 does not provide a cause of action

for violations of state law, including state common law, unless such violation is also a violation

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 25 Filed 05/30/06 Page 2 of 4
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

of a constitutional right. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817 (9th Cir. 2001); Draper v. Coombs,

792 F.2d 915 (9th Cir. 1986). 

B. Failure to Allege Discrimination Claim

To the extent that plaintiff is alleging that he was discriminated on the basis of his

race, he has failed to state a cognizable civil rights claim. The constitution prohibits

discrimination on the basis of race. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). To

establish a discrimination claim, a plaintiff must present evidence of discriminatory intent. 

See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239-40 (1976). If plaintiff chooses to amend his

complaint, he must present specific facts demonstrating that defendants discriminated against

him on the basis of his race. 

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In an abundance

of caution, the court will grant leave to file a third amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended 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 third

amended 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. See 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in

civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th

Cir. 1982).

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

order to make plaintiff's third amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 25 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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 a third amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a third 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 amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third amended Complaint”;

plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a

third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

Dated: May 30, 2006

/s/ Craig M. Kellison 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 25 Filed 05/30/06 Page 4 of 4