Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192-5/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 06cv1192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RASHAD JOHNSON

CDC #F-39513,

Civil No. 06cv1192-L (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER :

1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO

FILE A FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 51]; AND

2)DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO

EFFECT SERVICE OF THE FIFTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT WHEN IT IS

RECEIVED BY THE CLERK OF THE

COURT

v.

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT

SYSTEM; SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC., and

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT

SYSTEM SAN DIEGO TROLLEY, INC.

EMPLOYEE A. CAMPBELL, CODE

COMPLIANCE OFFICER,

Defendants.

I

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Anthony Rashad Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action under

42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of his civil rights. Plaintiff filed a “Motion proposed to a Fifth amended

complaint, to add a party.” [Doc. No. 51.] The Court construes the motion as a motion for leave to file a

Fifth Amended Complaint. The Court GRANTS plaintiff leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint, but

did not accept the proposed fifth amended complaint submitted with the motion. Rather, plaintiff is

granted 45 days, up to and including January 25, 2008, within which to file a (new) Fifth Amended

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 6
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 06cv1192

Complaint. THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME PLAINTIFF WILL BE GRANTED LEAVE TO

FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT. Therefore, the Court will give plaintiff 45 days to carefully

prepare a (new) Fifth Amended Complaint before filing it with this Court and serving it on the existing

defendants and any additional parties.

II

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has a history of several unsuccessful attempts to name and serve proper Defendants. 

Plaintiff alleges that a security officer at a San Diego trolley station handcuffed him and applied

excessive force. This action is brought against the officer and the employer entity. Plaintiff originally

instructed the U.S. Marshal to serve the entity Defendant named as “San Diego Metropolitan Trolley

Service.” The summons was returned unexecuted, because “San Diego Metropolitan Trolley Service”

was not the correct name. Plaintiff then moved to amend the Complaint to change the name of the

Defendant to “MTS.” [Doc. No. 29.] Because “MTS” did not appear to be a proper name, the Court

denied the motion without prejudice. [Doc. No. 30.]

Next, Plaintiff sought to change Defendant’s name to “San Diego Metropolitan Transit System.”

[Doc. No. 32.] The motion was granted. [Doc. No. 33.] Plaintiff was ordered to file a Third Amended

Complaint naming “San Diego Metropolitan Transit System” and “A.Campbell, San Diego Metropolitan

Transit System, Employee” as Defendants. The Third Amended Complaint naming Defendants as

ordered was filed on July 13, 2007. [Doc. No. 34.] Also on July 13, 2007, the summons was issued.

The docket reflects four unexecuted returns of service attempted since July 13, 2007. [Doc. No.

36-39.] The forms named Defendants as “San Diego Metropolitan Trolley System” instead of “San

Diego Metropolitan Transit System,” and “Employee Officer A. Campbell.” With respect to the

Defendant named as “San Diego Metropolitan Trolley System,” service was not effected because

Plaintiff did not state the correct name. With respect to the individual Defendant, the service was not

effected because “the attorney/Legal Unit for MTA would not accept [service] on behalf of an individual

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 6
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 06cv1192

officer.” [Doc. No. 36.]

On September 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a request that “the entity of the defendants be changed to

its proper title.” [Doc. No. 41: 20-21]. Plaintiff submitted a proposed Fourth Amended Complaint

which named Defendants as “Metropolitan Transit System, San Diego Trolley, Inc.” and “Metropolitan

Transit System, San Diego Trolley, Inc. employee A. Campbell, Code Compliance Officer.” On

September 25, 2007, the court granted plaintiff’s motion, accepted the Fourth Amended Complaint for

filing, and ordered the U.S. Marshal to effect service. [Doc. No. 42.]

On October 18, 2007, the summons was effectively served on both San Diego Metropolitan

Transit System and San Diego Trolley, Inc. [Doc. No. 45.] The docket shows one unexecuted return of

service as to A. Campbell (San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, Employee). [Doc. No. 46.]

On November 5, 2007, Defendants San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and San Diego

Trolley, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. [Doc. No. 47.] In it, Defendants

revealed that, at the time of the alleged incident, the officer named in the complaint (A. Campbell) was

an employee of Transit System Security, not San Diego Transit or Metropolitan Transit Development

Board. [Decl. Of Julie Morris Soden 2: 10-12.] According to Defendants, San Diego Trolley, Inc.,

contracts out the Security Patrol/Guard Services with Transit Systems Security and, on the date of the

alleged incident, Transit Systems Security was providing security services to San Diego Trolley, Inc.,

pursuant to the terms of the contract. [Decl. Of Julie Morris Soden 2: 6-9.]

III

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff will be given a FINAL opportunity to amend the complaint and to file a (new) Fifth

Amended Complaint. Plaintiff should take time to redraft his complaint to ensure that each defendant is

properly and exactly named. For example, in her declaration, Ms. Soden refers to the employer of A.

Campbell as both “Transit Systems Security” and as “Transit System Security.” Also, plaintiff may

want to review whether the factual allegations of the complaint should be amended with regard to the

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 6
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 06cv1192

new defendant.

Plaintiff is advised that "an amended pleading supersedes the original." Hal Roach Studios, Inc.

v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). "All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged

in an amended complaint are waived." King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation

omitted);see also Marx v. Loral Corp., 87 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 1996); USS-Posco Indus. v. Contra

Costa County Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO, 31 F.3d 800, 811 (9th Cir. 1994).

Because an amended pleading supersedes the original, it must stand or fall on its own;

jurisdictional and other allegations essential to the claim must be realleged; and the original complaint is

rendered irrelevant. An amended complaint that drops a defendant named in the original complaint

effectively dismisses that defendant from the action. London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811 (9th

Cir. 1981). Claims in the original complaint that are not re-alleged in the amended complaint are no

longer before the court and are deemed waived. Id. at 814. 

Although the allegations of a pro se complaint are held to Aless stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers,@ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), plaintiff is

required to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Civil Local Rules of the Southern

District of California.

Plaintiff=s current amended complaint is based upon an alleged violation of his federal

civil rights under 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Section 1983 provides: 

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any

citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws,

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper

proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 

/ / / / /

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5 06cv1192

Title 42 U.S.C. ' 1983 is not itself a source of substantive rights, but merely provides a method for

vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989). Section

1983 imposes two essential proof requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state

law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, privilege,

or immunity protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. ' 1983; West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds,

Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). 

In filing the fifth 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 plaintiff 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 constitutional 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. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff should also review the fifth amended complaint to ensure that it is being brought as to all

parties within the appropriate time limits. While there is no federal statute of limitations for claims brought

under sections 1983 and 1985, the Ninth Circuit has held that the California statute of limitations for filing

personal injury claims applies to section 1983 and 1985 causes of action. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d

945, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2004); Shah v. County of Los Angeles, 2007 WL 4208292 (C.D. Cal.) at 11. 

Finally, as to service, plaintiff is reminded that despite the alleged relationship between the entities,

he needs to treat and serve them as separate Defendants. Also it is noted that service still has not been

effected for Officer A. Campbell. Therefore, plaintiff should review the rules for service on individuals.

/ / / / / 

/ / / / /

/ / / / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6 06cv1192

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a (new) Fifth Amended Complaint on or before January 25,

2007. The proposed Fifth Amended Complaint that this court received on December 3, 2007, was NOT

accepted for filing. Therefore, plaintiff must submit a new Fifth Amended Complaint on or before January

25, 2007. THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME PLAINTIFF WILL BE ALLOWED TO AMEND THE

COMPLAINT. NO FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND WILL BE GRANTED.

2) Once the new Fifth Amended Complaint is filed, the Clerk shall issue a summons for Defendants,

provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of both this Order and his Fifth Amended Complaint, and forward

them to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of the Defendants. Plaintiff shall

complete the Forms 285 and forward them to the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is reminded that he must fill out

the necessary forms with care, using Defendants’ correct names. The U.S. Marshal shall, after receiving

Plaintiff’s completed Forms 285, serve a copy of the Fifth Amended Complaint, and any exhibits and

summons, upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be

advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon

Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the

Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate

stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel

for Defendants, and the date of service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 10, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 52 Filed 12/10/07 Page 6 of 6