Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02340/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02340-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REGINALD SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2340 ALA P

vs.

B. NAKU, et al.,

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff Reginald Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis. He

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 17, 2007, this court screened Mr. Smith’s

complaint and found service appropriate for defendants Castrillo and McMasters. Mr. Smith

was also granted thirty days to file an amended complaint. On September 13, 2007, Mr. Smith

filed an amended complaint, a motion for an evidentiary hearing, documents for service of

process and a document entitled “Petitioner’s Motion For Relief.” 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court must “review, before docketing . . . or . . . as soon as

practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

“On review, the court [must] identify cognizable claims or dismiss . . . any portion of the

complaint, if the complaint – (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

Case 2:06-cv-02340-GEB -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/02/07 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

2

relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). This court must therefore determine whether Mr. Smith’s

complaint states a cognizable claim for relief with respect to each named defendant.

Review of the amended complaint finds a document that is somewhat illegible and

indecipherable. As such, the amended complaint will be dismissed and Mr. Smith will be given

leave to file an amended complaint. 

If Mr. Smith chooses to file an amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Ellis v.

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint 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

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. Ivey v. Board of

Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, Mr. Smith is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

to make his 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Mr. Smith files an amended complaint, the original pleading no

longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

The court will suspend ordering service of defendants Castrillo and McMasters, as well

as ruling on Mr. Smith’s motion for an evidentiary hearing and relief, pending an amended

complaint or notice from Mr. Smith that he intends to proceed on the original complaint. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended

Case 2:06-cv-02340-GEB -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/02/07 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

3

complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted forty-nine (49) days from the

date of this order to file an amended complaint asserting cognizable claims for relief.

/////

DATED: November 1, 2007

/s/ Arthur L. Alarcón 

 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by Designation

Case 2:06-cv-02340-GEB -DAD Document 22 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 3