Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00813/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00813-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAFAEL URINA PAREDES,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0813 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CORRECTIONAL CORP. OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and has requested leave to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by

Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action was filed by Plaintiff and several other inmates alleging unconstitutional

conduct that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California Correctional Center. The

other inmate plaintiffs were severed from this action. 

The complaint in this action consists of a lengthy recitation of grievances that Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00813-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 09/12/06 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

2

and other inmates were subjected to at California City. The complaint includes grievances

regarding law library access, the quality of food, the prison grievance process, the prison

chaplain, access to religious services, access to telephone calls, the disciplinary processes, the

noise in the cell block, and various due process allegations. 

The other prisoner plaintiffs were severed from this complaint. The complaint before the

court, however, does not include allegations specifically as to Plaintiff, the sole remaining

Plaintiff in this action. The complaint consists of many generalized allegations regarding prison

life, but does not charge any individual defendant with conduct specific to Plaintiff. 

The court finds the allegations in plaintiff's 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 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. Community 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. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2), the complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an

amended complaint.

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). 

Case 1:05-cv-00813-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 09/12/06 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

3

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's complaint is dismissed; and

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

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 amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint." Failure to file

an 

amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Mmkd34Dated: September 11, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00813-AWI-WMW Document 19 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3