Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01649-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WAYNE WILSON, No. CIV S-05-1649-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 15),

filed on December 2, 2005.

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

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). 

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 5
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

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. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff names the following individuals as defendants: Hickman; Veal; Khoury;

Mehta; Kearney; Hernandez; Ritter; Hunt; Wagner; Raupe; Marshall; Meyers; Yarborough;

Fitter; Cassim; Attygalla; Fortaleza; Turner; Grannis; Loftin; Stocker; and Pearson. The caption

of the amended complaint also lists “California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.”

The amended complaint consists of a 22-page handwritten document entitled “First Amended

Complaint,” and more than 120 pages of attached exhibits. 

II. DISCUSSION

As with the original complaint, plaintiff’s amended complaint does not contain a

short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims as required by Rule 8. 

As discussed above, Rule 8 requires a complaint contain a short and plain

statement of the claim. Plaintiff’s complaint refers to over 120 pages of attached documents

which purportedly support the factual allegations against the defendants. This pleading method

does not, however, satisfy the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) that claims

must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. To the contrary, plaintiff’s complaint would

require the court to comb through over 120 pages of documents in order to even guess at

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 5
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

The original complaint named the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, which 1

was dismissed from this action as an immune defendant by order issued on December 7, 2005.

A state’s agency responsible for incarceration and correction of prisoners is a 2

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).

3

plaintiff’s claims. The court is unwilling to do this in part due to limited judicial resources but

also because it is for plaintiff – not the court – to formulate his claims. 

Additionally, the court notes that the amended complaint names the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which is an immune defendant. The Eleventh 1

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 2

(9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should be dismissed with prejudice. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because it is possible that some of the deficiencies identified in this order may be

cured by amending the complaint, 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, 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. 

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 12/13/05 Page 3 of 5
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

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). 

Because some of the defects identified in this order cannot be cured by

amendment, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend as to such claims. Plaintiff, therefore, now

has the following choices: (1) plaintiff may file an amended complaint which does not allege the

claims identified herein as incurable, in which case such claims will be deemed abandoned and

the court will address the remaining claims; or (2) plaintiff may file an amended complaint

which continues to allege claims identified as incurable, in which case the court will issue

findings and recommendations that such claims be dismissed from this action, as well as such

other orders and/or findings and recommendations as may be necessary to address the remaining

claims.

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure 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). 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 12/13/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on December 2, 2005, is

dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date

of service of this order.

DATED: December 9, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01649-GEB-CMK Document 17 Filed 12/13/05 Page 5 of 5