Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02522-9/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

EDGAR BERNABE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2522 LKK CMK P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, 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 March 3, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

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

complaint.

I. The Amended Complaint

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 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. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/20/06 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

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

See 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. See 

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. See 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). 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed July 11, 2006, consists of a list of

defendants; several pages of contentions; excerpts of what appear to be parole board hearings;

and copies of responses to prison appeals. The allegations in plaintiff’s complaint appear to be

that he was unjustly denied parole. He appears to allege that some of the defendants denied him

adequate medical care, and he has included copies of prison appeals regarding visitation and

property issues. In short, plaintiff’s complaint does not describe what claims plaintiff makes

against defendants. 

The allegations in plaintiff’s second amended complaint are so vague and

conclusory that it is impossible to determine whether plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous or fails to

state a claim for relief. 

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/20/06 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

3

The court, however, will give plaintiff one final chance to amend his complaint. 

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). 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.

See 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. See Ivey v. Board

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

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's 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 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.

Finally, plaintiff is directed to the case of McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996),

in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a complaint it found to be

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant. It consists largely of

immaterial background information.” The court observed the Federal Rules require that a

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/20/06 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

4

complaint consist of “simple, concise, and direct” averments. Id. As a model of concise

pleading, the court quoted the standard form negligence complaint from the Appendix to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

1. Allegation of Jurisdiction.

2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called Boylston Street, in Boston,

Massachusetts, defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against plaintiff, who

was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had his leg broken, and was

otherwise injured, and was prevented from transacting his business, suffered great

pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses for medical attention and

hospitalization in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of one

thousand dollars.

See id. This is a good model for plaintiff to follow in his pleading. Plaintiff's complaint suffers

from many of the same problems as the pleading dismissed in McHenry: there is much “

‘narrative rambling [ ]’ “ yet a marked lack of “notice of what legal claims are asserted against

which defendants.” Id. at 1176. As in McHenry, “[p]rolix, confusing complaints such as the ones

plaintiffs filed in this case impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges.” Id. at 1179.

II. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 11, 2006. Plaintiff

previously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted by the Court on

March 3, 2006. Accordingly, the July 11, 2006 motion is denied as moot. 

III. Motion for Immediate Injunction

Plaintiff filed a motion for an immediate injunction on June 26, 2006. Plaintiff

seeks an order from the court directing defendants to either: transfer him to a federal prison;

release him to the immigration and naturalization service; or release plaintiff on his own

 recognizance. In light of this court's determination that his complaint must be dismissed, there is

no underlying action to support plaintiff's request at this time. Accordingly, it will be denied

without prejudice.

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/20/06 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

5

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff is

informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's second

amended complaint complete. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with this

order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 11-110. 

2. Plaintiff’s July 11, 2006 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 22) is

denied as moot.

3. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2006 (doc. 18) is denied without prejudice. 

DATED: July 18, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02522-LKK -CMK Document 24 Filed 07/20/06 Page 5 of 5