Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02727/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02727-1/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

DONALD GENE PHILLIPS, No. CIV S-06-2727-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on

December 4, 2006.

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 it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 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

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are

satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds

upon which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff

must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which

support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it

is impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are

vague and conclusory. 

Plaintiff names as defendants California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and

“Director of Corrections.” Plaintiff alleges:

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor and the Director of Corrections

along with all parties responsible for policy of hiring illegal immigrants to

who [sic] they provide; ‘Pay Number,’ Worker Compensation benefits,

and special priviledges. [sic]

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation acting under

color of law are [sic] committing an illegal act when they employ illegal

immigrants.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation acting under

color of law discriminates against serving a 80% sentence under Calif.

Penal Code § 1170.12 by placing those inmates on a separate waiting list

for work assignments. 

This is the entirety of plaintiff’s statement of his claim. In his request for relief, plaintiff also

states:

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: prohibiting the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation from discriminating against those persons

serving a 80% sentence . . . by placing all inmates desiring work

assignment on the same waiting list. 

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction prohibiting the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation from hiring illegal immigrants. In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks

monetary damages. 

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 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

It appears that plaintiff is challenging an alleged California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation policy of hiring illegal aliens and giving them certain benefits. 

As to this claim, plaintiff has not alleged how such a policy has caused him to suffer a violation

of any right guaranteed to him by the Constitution or any federal law. As to plaintiff’s

allegations concerning 80% sentences, while they suggest an equal protection claim, the

allegations are not consistent. On the one hand, plaintiff states that persons serving 80%

sentences are on a separate waiting list for work assignments. On the other hand, plaintiff also

alleges that all inmates desiring work are placed on the same waiting list. If, as plaintiff asserts,

inmates serving 80% sentences are on a different waiting list, then it would be impossible for all

inmates to the on the same waiting list, as plaintiff also alleges. 

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint must

be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id. 

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 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

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 

1260-61; see also Local Rule 11-110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to

comply with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule

41(b). See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

service of this order.

DATED: December 8, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02727-FCD-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/11/06 Page 4 of 4