Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01032/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01032-0/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

JOSE J. NUNEZ, No. CIV S-07-1032-DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

DEUEL VOCATIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not, however, filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis or paid the required filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a). Plaintiff will be

provided the opportunity to submit either a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis

or the appropriate filing fee. 

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 it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

Case 2:07-cv-01032-JKS-CMK Document 3 Filed 06/06/07 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

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

In this case, the only defendant named in the complaint is the Deuel Vocational

Institution, a facility within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The

Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against a state both by

its own citizens, as well as by citizens of other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley

Elec. Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This prohibition extends to suits against states

themselves, and to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). A state’s

agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a state agency for purposes of

the Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v.

Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th cir. 1993) (en banc).

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint to name individual defendants, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend

prior to dismissal of the entire action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes

the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus,

Case 2:07-cv-01032-JKS-CMK Document 3 Filed 06/06/07 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

following dismissal with leave to amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are

not alleged in the amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

Cir. 1987). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior

pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An

amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to resolve the fee status for this case and to

file an amended complaint within the time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of

this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is also

warned that a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651

F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall submit on the form provided by the Clerk of the Court,

within 30 days from the date of this order, a complete application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, including the required affidavits and certifications, or the appropriate filing fee;

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

this order; and

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-01032-JKS-CMK Document 3 Filed 06/06/07 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

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a new form Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis By a Prisoner and the court’s § 1983 form complaint for state

prisoners.

DATED: June 5, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01032-JKS-CMK Document 3 Filed 06/06/07 Page 4 of 4