Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01004-3/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

LARRY SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-1004 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On December 30, 2020, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to 

do under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court dismissed the complaint and granted leave to file an 

amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

Having screened the amended complaint, the court finds that it suffers from many of the 

same problems as the original. As plaintiff already knows, under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must contain, among other things, “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint identifies 40 defendants. Much of the information included in the amended complaint 

is repetitive and/or irrelevant to stating a claim upon which relief can be granted. With respect to 

some of the defendants, plaintiff fails to make any allegations suggesting personal participation in 

/////

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/21/21 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

27

28

2

any of the deprivations alleged. Liability in a 42 U.S.C. §1983 case “arises only upon a showing 

of personal participation by the defendant.” Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

As in the original complaint, plaintiff has violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a)

by joining claims and defendants that have sufficient relation to one another. 

Because plaintiff’s amended complaint violates Rules 8(a)(2) and 18(a), plaintiff’s

amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff one more 

opportunity to submit pleadings upon which he might proceed.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, plaintiff must comply with Rule 8

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To that end, the second amended complaint may not 

exceed 20 pages and must be written with normal spacing and font size. Unnecessary 

background information shall be omitted and plaintiff shall take care not to be repetitive. 

Also, plaintiff may bring as many claims as he likes against a particular defendant in his 

second amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). But claims brought against other defendants 

must arise “out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” as a 

claim against the first defendant. Fed R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Vague allegations concerning 

conspiracy do not satisfy court rules regarding joinder of claims. 

In order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in his second 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),

alleging in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Also, in order to avoid 

dismissal for failure to state a claim, a claim must have facial plausibility. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff shall not include any claims for which plaintiff 

failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing suit. Under 42 U.S.C. § 

1997e(a) “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this 

title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional 

facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”

/////

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/21/21 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

27

28

3

Plaintiff is informed that denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical 

needs may constitute a violation of a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 

429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976). A prison official is liable under the Eighth Amendment when injury 

results from at least deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id.

The Equal Protection Clause generally protects against unequal treatment as a result of 

intentional or purposeful discrimination. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 1997).

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from inflicting cruel and unusual 

punishment on inmates which has been defined as “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). “[W]henever prison officials stand accused 

of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the 

core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 

discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 7 

(1992).

Finally, plaintiff is reminded that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that any amended 

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

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed.

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 this order and the court’s December 

20, 2021 order. The second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case 

and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Failure to file a second amended complaint 

in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 

Dated: September 21, 2021

1

smit1004.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01004-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/21/21 Page 3 of 3