Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00874/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00874-6/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRYAN MAZZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

L. AUSTIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0874 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison Solano (CSP-SOL), 

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all 

purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 305(a). See ECF No. 11. 

 On October 14, 2014, in response to this court’s order filed October 1, 2014, plaintiff filed 

a First Amended Complaint (FAC). See ECF No. 27. Review of the FAC demonstrates that it 

improperly seeks to incorporate allegations made in plaintiff’s original complaint. See id. at 4 

(“Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-23.”). Plaintiff is informed that 

all of his factual allegations and legal claims must be set forth in the operative complaint. This 

court cannot refer to a prior pleading in an effort to construe the operative pleading. Local Rule 

220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to a prior 

pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (amended complaint supersedes the 

Case 2:14-cv-00874-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 05/05/15 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 

27 

28 

2

original complaint). Therefore, in the instant case, each factual allegation, each legal claim and 

the alleged involvement of each defendant must be specifically and sufficiently pled in a Third 

Amended Complaint. Alternatively, for the reasons stated below, plaintiff will again be accorded 

the opportunity to proceed on his original complaint. 

 This court previously determined that plaintiff’s original complaint states cognizable 

Eighth Amendment claims against defendants L. Austin, Dr. M. Kuersten, Dr. J. McCue, and Dr. 

R. Tan, for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs, but that the complaint does 

not state cognizable claims against defendants G. Swarthout, J. Kelso, J. Beard, A. Pfile and Dr. J. 

Lipson. See ECF No. 26 (Court’s October 1, 2014 Order). Plaintiff was accorded the 

opportunity to proceed on his original complaint against the identified defendants or file a FAC. 

 In his FAC, plaintiff proposes, without explanation, that Dr. McCue also be dismissed 

from this action. See FAC, ECF No. 27 at 2, 3. According to the original complaint, Dr. McCue 

was the Chief Medical Officer ultimately responsible for decisions made by medical staff at CSPSOL and, inter alia, was directly involved in deferring plaintiff’s referral to a neurologist. ECF 

No. 3 at 3, ¶ 4, 19. Hence, as set forth in the original complaint, the allegations against Dr. 

McCue state a potentially cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. 

 Also in his FAC, plaintiff defers to the dismissal of defendants Swarthout, Kelso, Beard, 

and Pfile, but not to the dismissal of Dr. J. Lipson. The FAC alleges that Dr. Lipson was 

plaintiff’s Primary Care Physician (PCP) from April 2011 to March 2012, and was then 

“responsible for the input of medical documentation entered into the plaintiff’s UHR, Unit Health 

Record,” and “attended Pain Management Committees on the plaintiff’s behalf.” FAC, ECF No. 

27 at 3. Plaintiff emphasizes that his original complaint included allegations against Dr. Lipson 

but inadvertently omitted his name from the formal listing of the defendants. See id. at 2. 

Review of the original complaint supports plaintiff’s observations. See Complaint, ECF No. 3 at 

4-6, ¶¶ 14, 17 (alleging, inter alia, that Dr. Lipson, as plaintiff’s PCP, heard plaintiff’s complaints 

of pain, ordered diagnostic tests, and made allegedly false statements to other medical providers 

that he believed plaintiff was using illicit drugs, resulting in the denial of prescribed pain 

medications). The court’s reconsideration of these and other allegations set forth in plaintiff’s 

Case 2:14-cv-00874-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 05/05/15 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 

27 

28 

3

original complaint demonstrates that the original complaint states a cognizable Eighth 

Amendment claim against Dr. Lipson. 

 For these several reasons, and due to the inadequacy of plaintiff’s SAC, plaintiff will 

again be accorded the opportunity to proceed on his original complaint – against defendants 

Lipson, Austin, Kuersten, Tan and McCue – and to submit the documents necessary to serve 

process on these defendants, or to file a Third Amended Complaint. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is dismissed without prejudice; plaintiff 

may proceed on his original complaint or a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC). 

 2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Swarthout, Kelso, Beard, and Pfile – but not 

against defendant Lipson – remain dismissed with leave to amend. 

 3. Plaintiff’s original complaint, ECF No. 3, states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims 

for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious medical needs against defendants Lipson, Austin, 

Kuersten, McCue, and Tan. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A 

 4. Within thirty (30) days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall return the 

attached Notice of Election indicating whether he intends to proceed on: (1) his original 

complaint, ECF No. 3; or (2) a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC). 

 5. If plaintiff elects to proceed on his original complaint, he shall submit, in tandem with 

the Notice of Election, the following documents: one completed summons, five completed USM285 forms for each defendant identified in Paragraph 3, and six copies of the endorsed original 

complaint filed March 21, 2014, ECF No. 3. The court will transmit these materials to the United 

States Marshal for service of process pursuant to Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendants Lipson, Austin, Kuersten, McCue, and Tan will be required to respond to plaintiff’s 

allegations within the deadlines set forth in Rule 12(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If 

plaintiff elects this option, the court will construe plaintiff’s election as consent to an order 

dismissing defendants Swarthout, Kelso, Beard and Pfile from this action without prejudice. 

 6. If plaintiff elects to file a TAC, he shall submit the proposed TAC together with the 

Notice of Election. 

Case 2:14-cv-00874-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 05/05/15 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 

27 

28 

4

 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to send plaintiff, together with a copy of this order, the 

following: (1) one blank summons, (2) five USM-285 forms, (3) a copy of the endorsed original 

complaint filed March 21, 2014, ECF No. 3, and (4) instructions for service of process on 

defendants Lipson, Austin, Kuersten, McCue and Tan. 

 8. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action 

without prejudice. 

DATED: May 4, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-00874-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 05/05/15 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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRYAN MAZZA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

L. AUSTIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0874 AC P 

NOTICE OF ELECTION 

 Plaintiff hereby elects to proceed in this action as follows: 

 __________ Pursuant to a Third Amended Complaint (TAC), submitted herewith. 

OR 

 __________ Pursuant to the original complaint, ECF No. 3, together with the following 

 service documents submitted herewith: 

 ________ One completed summons form 

 ________ Five completed forms USM-285 (one for each defendant) 

 ________ Six copies of the endorsed original complaint filed March 21, 2014, 

 ECF No. 3. 

 AND 

 ________ Plaintiff consents to the dismissal of defendants Swarthout, Kelso, 

 Beard and Pfile without prejudice. 

____________________________________ ____________________________________ 

Date Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-00874-TLN-AC Document 28 Filed 05/05/15 Page 5 of 5