Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03890/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03890-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN DUCHESNE, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

LAURIE SMITH, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3890 CRB (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

LEAVE TO AMEND

While plaintiff was a pre-trial detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail, he

filed the instant pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff

challenges virtually all aspects of the conditions of confinement at the Santa

Clara County Jail and seeks injunctive and monetary relief.

Because plaintiff was recently convicted on state criminal charges and

transferred to North Kern State Prison in Delano, California, his claims for

injunctive relief are dismissed as moot. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-

69 (9th Cir. 1995) (when an inmate is released from prison or transferred to

another prison and there is no reasonable expectation nor demonstrated

probability that he will again be subjected to the prison conditions from which he

seeks injunctive relief, the claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed as

moot). Plaintiff's transfer does not moot his claims for damages; however, they

Case 3:05-cv-03890-CRB Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 2
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

will be dismissed with leave to amend so that plaintiff may allege specific facts

showing how each and every named defendant actually and 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). Plaintiff’s largely conclusory allegations of constitutional wrongdoing

will not do. See Leer, 844 F.2d at 634. 

Plaintiff’s complaint accordingly is DISMISSED with leave to amend to

file a simple, concise and direct amended complaint which states clearly and

succinctly how each and every defendant is alleged to have actually and

proximately cause the deprivation of plaintiff's federally-protected rights. See

McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) ("The Federal Rules

require that averments 'be simple, concise, and direct.'"). The pleading must

include the caption and civil case number used in this order and the words FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper amended

complaint within 30 days of this order will result in the dismissal of this action.

Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original

complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the

amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: Feb. 15, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03890-CRB Document 6 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2