Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00766/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00766-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. SEITZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC)

SECOND ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT 

OR NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS DESIRE 

TO PROCEED ONLY ON CLAIM FOUND 

COGNIZABLE

21-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., asserts two causes of action in his second amended 

complaint. (Doc. 21) In Claim I, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Seitz retaliated against him in 

violation of the First Amendment and the California Bane Act. (Id. at 4.) In Claim II, Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants Chappuis, Hunrah, Kernan, Quam, and Wannamaker denied him access 

to the courts. (Id. at 5.)

In its screening order, the Court found that Claim I is cognizable but Claim II is not. (Doc. 

23). Accordingly, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a third amended complaint curing the 

deficiencies in his pleading OR, in the alternative, notify the Court that he wishes to proceed only 

on Claim I against Seitz and to dismiss the remaining claim and defendants. (Id. at 7-8.)

On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he wishes to proceed on the 

retaliation claim (Claim I) under the First Amendment against Seitz, and under the Bane Act 

against both Seitz and Kernan. (Doc. 24). However, as stated above, Plaintiff named only Seitz as 

Case 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO Document 25 Filed 01/10/20 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

a defendant in Claim I of his second amended complaint; and, the Court screened the complaint 

according to the facts alleged therein. Therefore, if Plaintiff wishes to add a new defendant to his 

retaliation claim, he must name the defendant and state facts showing that he is liable for the 

alleged civil rights violation(s). See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002)

(complaint “must ... give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within 21 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL file one of the 

following two items:

a. a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s 

screening order, (Doc. 23), OR

b. a notice that he does not wish to file a third amended complaint and instead 

wishes to proceed only on his retaliation claim (Claim I) against Defendant

Seitz and to dismiss his remaining claims and defendants.

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend that this action 

proceed only on the claim found cognizable and that all other claims and defendants be 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO Document 25 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2