Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02337/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02337-0/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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.05\Davis337dwlta 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULYSSES DAVIS, JR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JILL BROWN, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2337 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison,

filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning the

conditions of his confinement at San Quentin. Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis in a separate order. On October 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a first amended

complaint which includes a proposed temporary restraining order and order to show cause

to defendants. The amended complaint also contains documentation of plaintiff’s prison

administrative appeal and letters concerning plaintiff’s claims. However, plaintiff does

not set forth any substantive claims in the first amended complaint. Therefore, it is

unclear to the court whether plaintiff intends to proceed with the first amended complaint

or the substantive claims set forth in his original complaint. Accordingly, the court will

dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend so that plaintiff may include all

Case 5:05-cv-02337-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/06 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.05\Davis337dwlta 2

of the claims he wishes to present in a second amended complaint, or notify the court that

he intends to proceed with the substantive claims in his original complaint, within thirty

days of the date of this order. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person

acting under the color of state law committed a violation of a right secured by the

Constitution or laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Liability may be imposed on an individual defendant under section 1983 if the

plaintiff can show that the defendant proximately caused the deprivation of a federally

protected right. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988); Harris v. City of

Roseburg, 664 F.2d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 1981). A person deprives another of a

constitutional right within the meaning of section 1983 if he does an affirmative act,

participates in another’s affirmative act or omits to perform an act which he is legally

required to do, that causes the deprivation of which the plaintiff complains. Leer, 844

F.2d at 633; Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir. 1995). Sweeping

conclusory allegations will not suffice; the plaintiff must instead “set forth specific facts

as to each individual defendant’s” deprivation of protected rights. Leer, 844 F.2d at 634.

\\\

\\\

\\\

Case 5:05-cv-02337-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/06 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.05\Davis337dwlta 3

B. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on October 12, 2005. Plaintiff’s first

amended complaint does not allege any substantive claims, but includes a proposed

temporary restraining order and order to show cause to defendants. The first amended

complaint also contains documentation of plaintiff’s prison administrative appeal and

letters regarding plaintiff’s complaints concerning the prison conditions. The court will

dismiss the first amended complaint with leave to amend so that plaintiff may include all

of the claims he wishes to present in a second amended complaint, or notify the court that

he intends to proceed with the substantive claims in his original complaint, within thirty

days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff must allege facts supporting each claim separately in his second amended

complaint showing his entitlement to relief from each individual defendant. Plaintiff

must be careful to allege specific facts showing the basis for liability for each individual

defendant. He should not refer to the defendants as a group, i.e., “the defendants;” rather,

he should identify each involved defendant by name and link each of them to a specific

claim by explaining what each defendant did or failed to do that caused a violation of his

constitutional rights. 

 CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to 

amend as indicated above. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint containing all

of the substantive claims he wishes to present, or file a notice with the court that he

intends to proceed with the substantive claims in his original complaint, within thirty

days from the date this order is filed. 

2. If plaintiff files a second amended complaint, the second amended 

complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (C 05-2337

RMW (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

Case 5:05-cv-02337-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/06 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.05\Davis337dwlta 4

1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992). Plaintiff may not incorporate

material from the original complaint or first amended complaint, such as supporting

documentation of his prison administrative appeal, by reference. Plaintiff must include

all documentation and supporting information with the second amended complaint. 

Failure to file a notice with the court or a second amended complaint within the

designated time will result in the dismissal of the first amended complaint without

prejudice.

 3. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the 

court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed

“Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the court’s orders in a timely

fashion or ask for an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the

dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/21/2006 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02337-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/06 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

Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\cr.05\Davis337dwlta 5

This is to certify that on 5/10/2006 , a copy of this

ruling was mailed to the following:

Ulysses Davis, Jr.

K-24524

San Quentin State Prison

San Quentin, CA 94974

Case 5:05-cv-02337-RMW Document 5 Filed 05/11/06 Page 5 of 5