Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05131/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05131-12/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

KENNETH SIERRA,

Plaintiff, CV F 01 5131 AWI WMW PC

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the June 8, 2007, third amended complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate

in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at CSP Corcoran,

brings this civil rights action against unspecified officials employed by the CDCR. 

The third amended complaint on which this action proceeds consists of 99 pages of

rambling narrative, detailing the history of Plaintiff’s medical care at various prisons over the

years. Plaintiff refers to numerous individuals in the complaint, but fails to specifically list

individual defendants. Though plaintiff labels some of his paragraphs with the phrase “ground

for relief,” the court can not discern specific claims. 

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 221 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between the actions

of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). The

Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional

right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s

affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the

deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure calls for a “short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of

notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the opposing party fair notice of a claim. 

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does not require an elaborate recitation

of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a statement sufficient to “give

the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id.

at 47. 

Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with section 1983 linkage requirements or Rule

8(a), because it does not consist of a short and plain statement of plaintiff’s claims, and it does

not provide each defendant with fair notice of what that defendant did or did not do that allegedly

violated plaintiff’s rights. At 99 pages, plaintiff’s complaint is much longer than it needs to be,

and it does not separate out each of plaintiff’s claims against each defendant. In addition,

plaintiff’s complaint contains allegations concerning individuals who are not named in the

complaint as defendants and fails to contain any allegations at all against some of the individuals

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 221 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 4
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

who are named as defendants in the complaint.

The court will provide plaintiff with an opportunity to file an amended complaint curing

these deficiencies. In amending his complaint, plaintiff is informed that his allegations should

not be lengthy or overly-detailed. Rather, as previously stated, plaintiff need only set forth

enough facts so that each defendant is on notice as to what he or she did or did not do that

plaintiff believes violated his rights. 

The court finds that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed, with leave to amend, for

failure to comply with the linkage requirements of section1983 and for failure to comply with

Rule 8(a). The court has provided plaintiff with the legal standards that appear to be applicable

to his claims and will provide plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. In

drafting his amended complaint, plaintiff is cautioned that it is his responsibility to organize his

complaint so that defendants and the court can readily ascertain which claims plaintiff is

pursuing against which defendants.

Finally, plaintiff is advised Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The thid amended complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall

file a fourth amended complaint;

4. The failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this order may

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 221 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 4
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

result in an order striking the amended complaint from the record; and

5. The failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05131-AWI-GSA Document 221 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 4