Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01593/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01593-7/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ERIC CHATMON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1593 GEB EFB P

vs.

BERRY, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2005, plaintiff initiated this action by filing

an original complaint against defendants Berry, Cook, Hurlbert, Wojack, and Craig. On January

25, 2006, plaintiff filed two amended complaints. One named only defendants Wojack and

Craig, the other named defendants Berry, Cook, and Hurlbert. The former first amended

complaint was filed and the latter was treated as an exhibit. 

 The court ordered service of process on defendants Wojack and Craig on April 19, 2006. 

 On October 4, 2006, plaintiff wrote to the court asking for service against defendants Berry,

Cook, and Hurlbert. The court deemed this a motion to amend the complaint and granted

plaintiff leave of 30 days in which to do so. Plaintiff has since filed motions on January 22,

2007, and March 1, 2007, seeking extensions of time in which to file an amended complaint.

Case 2:05-cv-01593-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 03/27/07 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

 Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s request. In filing a second amended

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 second amended 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, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's second 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 a second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. The court further cautions plaintiff that he must use only one form for

filing his second amended complaint, as his use of two forms in filing his first amended

complaint caused confusion resulting in only two defendants being served. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 22, 2007, motion is granted and plaintiff has 30 days from the date

this order is served to file and serve a motion to amend complaint together with a proposed

second amended complaint;

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01593-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 03/27/07 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

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the form used to file a

civil complaint in this district for the purpose of filing his second amended complaint; 

3. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Wojack and Craig on August 23, 2006, is

dismissed without prejudice to its refiling directed to the operative, second amended complaint

once it is served. 

Dated: March 27, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-01593-GEB-EFB Document 36 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 3