Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02145/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02145-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN FOSTER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-2145 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented 

to have all matters in this action before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 30, 2016. The court is required to screen 

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or 

employee of a governmental entity. 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. 

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. Neitzke, 

Case 2:15-cv-02145-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/12/16 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

27

28

2

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.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than 

“naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause 

of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words, 

“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 

statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim 

upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A 

claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw 

the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007), 

and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 

As in his original complaint, plaintiff alleges he hurt his hand while conducting

maintenance on a washing machine at his prison. Plaintiff alleges his injury was caused when a 

computer “glitch” caused the machine to start unexpectedly. He claims certain defendants 

caused his injury by not having the washing machine in question repaired.

As with his original complaint, plaintiff still fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment because he fails to plead 

facts suggesting any defendant subjected plaintiff to a substantial risk of serious harm by being at 

least deliberately indifferent to that risk. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994). At 

best, plaintiff alleges he was subjected to negligence in violation of California tort law. Good 

cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff one more opportunity to state a claim upon which 

plaintiff can proceed in this court.

1

 

1

 If the only actionable claim plaintiff has is for negligence in violation of California law, 

plaintiff must proceed in a California court as this court would lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:15-cv-02145-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/12/16 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

27

28

3

As plaintiff was previously informed, if plaintiff chooses to file a second amended 

complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 

227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second 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. 

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. 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 second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 a second amended complaint, the original 

pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second 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 (ECF No. 16) is dismissed; and

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

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 second amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint”; failure to 

/////

/////

 

1330 et seq.

Case 2:15-cv-02145-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/12/16 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

27

28

4

file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: April 12, 2016

1

jack2145.14a

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-02145-CKD Document 17 Filed 04/12/16 Page 4 of 4