Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01640-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WILLIAM C. MENEFEE,

Plaintiff, 

vs. No. CIV S-06-1640 DFL GGH PS

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested leave to proceed in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule

72-302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing required by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete

the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case

at any time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or

malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

an immune defendant. 

A claim is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984); Jackson

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/04/06 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

v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989).

A complaint, or portion thereof, fails to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt

there is no set of supporting facts entitling plaintiff to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under

this standard, the court must accept as true its allegations, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp.

Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe it in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and

resolve all doubts in plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 ( 1969). 

Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,

520-21, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-96 (1972); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1988). Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before

dismissal. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1230. 

Plaintiff alleges that officials at Solano County Jail deprived him of his right to

nutritionally adequate diabetic meals and medical care for his diabetes, in violation of the

Americans with Disabilities Act. He also alleges deliberate indifference, due process violations,

discrimination based on his disability, denial of access to the courts and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages.

Unfortunately, plaintiff has named several doe defendants, including “registered

dietician,” “jail kitchen supervisor,” “medical care defendants,” and “jail administration.” Doe

defendants are not usually favored. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Amendment is allowed, however, to substitute true names for the fictitiously named defendants. 

Merritt v. County of Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 766 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, plaintiff has not

named the persons who allegedly deprived him of his diabetic meals and medical care, other than

named defendants Aramark, the State of California, and Solano County Jail. Therefore, his

complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/04/06 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

Plaintiff is also advised that he may bring a claim pursuant to Title II of the ADA

against state entities for injunctive relief and damages. See Phiffer v. Columbia River

Correctional Institute, 384 F.3d 791 (9 Cir. 2004); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9 Cir. th th

2002). Plaintiff may seek money damages against state entities under the ADA, but only insofar

as defendants’ activities violated the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Georgia, ___ U.S.

___, 126 S. Ct. 877, 881 (2006). However, he cannot seek damages pursuant to the ADA against

the defendants in their individual capacities. Eason v. Clark County School Dist., 303 F.3d 1137,

1144 (9 Cir. 2002), citing Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health, 280 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2001). th

Accordingly, if plaintiff intends to make claims against any individual defendants under the

ADA, the claims brought under this statute will be dismissed against these defendants. Because

plaintiff has also failed to show that the Fourteenth Amendment is implicated, he will be granted

leave to amend on this basis.

Plaintiff is informed the court cannot refer to prior pleadings in order to make an

amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be

complete in itself. 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). Accordingly, once

plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original no longer serves any function in the case. 

Therefore, “a plaintiff waives all causes of action alleged in the original complaint which are not

alleged in the amended complaint,” London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 (9th

Cir.1981), and defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer defendants. Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992).

Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/04/06 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

2. The complaint is dismissed, with leave to file an amended complaint within

thirty days from the date of service of this order. Failure to file an amended complaint will result

in a recommendation that the action be dismissed.

DATED: 8/4/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ifp.amd

Menefee1640.amd.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 3 Filed 08/04/06 Page 4 of 4