Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03303/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03303-8/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JESUS ARZAGA, 

Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-3303 JAM JFM (PC)

vs.

CRAIG LOVETT, 

Defendant. 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 November 2, 2012, plaintiff's amended

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

a second amended 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. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(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,

1

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/27/13 Page 1 of 5
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

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. 

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.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘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)). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain

more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual

allegations sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. However,

“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘“give the defendant fair

notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551

U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 in turn quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true

the allegations of the complaint in question, see id., and construe the pleading in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

In screening plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the court has determined that,

like plaintiff’s original and first amended complaint, he fails to meet the court’s directive to

provide sufficient facts for the court to determine whether or not he has stated a claim. 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint states as follows:

1) Dr. Craig Lovett, is in fact reasonably related to legitimate

penological interests in this matter, of the specific violation of

constitutional law by acting under color of state law.

2) Dr. Craig Lovett, is the surgeon in this matter, that violated the

plaintiff of his fundamentally given due process rights under the

U.S. Constitution.

3) Dr. Lovett, willfully, deliberately p[er]formed the specific

2

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/27/13 Page 2 of 5
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

violation of due process, when he took matters into his own hands

by violating the Plaintiff’s 14[th] Amendment rights to equal

protection, when he imposed an atypical and significant hardship

on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of personal and

prison life. 

(Dkt. No. 24 at p. 1-2.) These bare facts are insufficient to state a claim against defendant

Lovett. The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint so vague and conclusory

that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for

relief. The court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short and plain

statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible

pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that

support plaintiff's claim. Id. (emphasis added). Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the second amended complaint must be dismissed. The

court will, however, 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. Ivey v. Bd. 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 second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an

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

3

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/27/13 Page 3 of 5
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

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

second amended complaint 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 second amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint shall comply 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”; failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order may result in

the dismissal of this action.

DATED: February 26, 2013.

14

arza.14.amd.new

4

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/27/13 Page 4 of 5
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL JESUS ARZAGA,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 11-cv-3303 JAM JFM (PC)

vs.

CRAIG LOVETT,

Defendant. NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

___________________________/

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's

order filed :

______________ Third Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:11-cv-03303-JAM-EFB Document 25 Filed 02/27/13 Page 5 of 5