Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02217/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02217-5/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

SEAN C. FISHER, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2217 MCE KJM P

vs.

JANE DOE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 2, 2007, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended

complaint.

As previously noted, 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). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02217-MCE-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/10/08 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

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, 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.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

Many of the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint are related to the fact

that plaintiff was found guilty of conspiring to murder peace officers in prisoner disciplinary

proceedings. It appears petitioner lost 365 days of good conduct sentencing credit as a result of

that decision. Am. Compl. at ¶ 124. Any claims that imply the invalidity of the decision to

revoke good conduct credit are barred by Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 645-46 (1997). 

Petitioner must first obtain relief as to the loss of the good conduct sentence credit, either

through a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action in this court or a state court action, before he can maintain a

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with respect to those claims. Id. at 646-48. 

In light of the above, plaintiff’s amended complaint will be dismissed with leave

to file a second amended complaint, if he is able while complying fully with Federal Rule of

Case 2:05-cv-02217-MCE-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/10/08 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

Civil Procedure 11. In addition to removing any claims that imply the invalidity of the prison

disciplinary finding that petitioner conspired to murder peace officers, plaintiff must consult the

court’s May 2, 2007 order regarding the contents of an amended complaint when drafting his

second amended complaint. In particular, the court notes that plaintiff’s amended complaint is

still too long, and plaintiff’s allegations regarding the prison grievance procedure do not state a

claim for denial of access to courts upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff is again informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

to make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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

prior 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. 

Plaintiff has filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction in which plaintiff

asks that the court order officials at his prison to allow plaintiff to use the prisoner grievance

process. As plaintiff was informed in the court’s May 2, 2007 order, plaintiff does not have a

Constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 1996). Furthermore, there still is no operative complaint in this matter to support the

consideration of injunctive relief. See Local Rule 65-231. 

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 the court’s May 2, 2007 order,

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

Case 2:05-cv-02217-MCE-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/10/08 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

“Second Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must file an original and one copy of the 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.

3. Plaintiff’s June 4, 2007 motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.

DATED: January 9, 2008. 

1

fish2217(5.18.07)

Case 2:05-cv-02217-MCE-CKD Document 24 Filed 01/10/08 Page 4 of 4