Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00520-3/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RENO RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. GIPSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00520-BAM-PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

DECLARATION TO SUPPLEMENT 

COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 18)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER FILE A SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT OR NOTIFY COURT OF 

WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED ONLY ON 

COGNIZABLE CLAIMS

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

(ECF No. 4.)

On October 18, 2016, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint states a claim against Defendants Gipson, Mayo, Ortega, Garcia and Pina for due 

process violations regarding his gang validation, and against Defendants Johnson, Cuevas, and 

Hiracheta for retaliating against Plaintiff for engaging in a hunger strike. (ECF No. 10.) Certain 

other claims were dismissed without leave to amend, but Plaintiff was granted leave to file a 

Case 1:14-cv-00520-DAD-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 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

27

28

2

second amended complaint to attempt to cure deficiencies related to his claim that he was 

subjected to harsh conditions of confinement in retaliation for protected activity. (Id. at 10.) 

Plaintiff was ordered to either file a second amended complaint, or notify the Court that he was 

willing to proceed on the cognizable claims identified by the Court. (Id. at 11.) 

On November 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “declaration to supplement his complaint and 

correct any deficiency which could be interpreted in a different manner.” (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff 

states in that document that he would like to clarify and add allegations to his first amended 

complaint, and he makes several allegations regarding the conditions of confinement issue 

discussed above. Plaintiff also attached an exhibit to his declaration. Plaintiff concludes that 

declaration, however, by stating that he “does not wish to file a second amended complaint and 

he is willing to proceed with” the additional allegations and clarifications discussed in his 

declaration. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff’s declaration does not comply with the Court’s October 18, 2016 order. Plaintiff 

must either elect to file a second amended complaint, or proceed with the cognizable claims 

identified in the Court’s October 18, 2016 order. He may not amend, correct, add, or clarify his 

complaint allegations in this manner.

Plaintiff will be permitted an additional thirty (30) days to either file a second amended 

complaint or notify the Court of his intention to proceed with the cognizable claims identified in 

the Court’s October 18, 2016 order. Plaintiff is reminded that if he elects to amend his complaint, 

that amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 

1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997), King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be 

“complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” Local Rule 220.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must 

either:

a. File a second amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the 

Court in its October 18, 2016 order, or

Case 1:14-cv-00520-DAD-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 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

27

28

3

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file second amended 

complaint and is willing to proceed on his first amended complaint against 

Defendants Gipson, Mayo, Ortega, Garcia and Pina for due process 

violations regarding his gang validation claims, and against Defendants 

Johnson, Cuevas, and Hiracheta for retaliating against him for engaging in 

a hunger strike; and

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00520-DAD-BAM Document 19 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 3