Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01195/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01195-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CURTIS KERN,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.F. ALPHONSO,

 Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-01195-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF ONE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO 

FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

(ECF Nos. 9, 10)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on October 2, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) 

On October 21, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found not cognizable 

claims, and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 4, 2024. (ECF No. 8.) On November 

25, 2024, the Court screened the first amended complaint and issued Findings and 

Recommendations recommending the instant action be dismissed for failure to state a cognizable 

claim for relief. (ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff filed objections on December 9, 2024. (ECF No. 10.) In his objections, Plaintiff 

provides additional factual details that were not presented in the first amended complaint and it is 

appears that Plaintiff may be able to present additional facts in support of a claim for deliberate 

Case 1:24-cv-01195-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/10/24 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

indifference against Dr. state a cognizable claim for relief based on the additional allegations. 

Thus, given that pro se complaints should be pro se complaints should be liberally construed and 

“may only be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of his [or her] claim[,]” Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017), 

the Court will vacate the pending Findings and Recommendations and grant Plaintiff one final 

opportunity to amend the complaint. However, Plaintiff is advised that the Court makes no ruling 

as the merits of any claims presented in a second amended complaint. Plaintiff is further advised 

that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make Plaintiff’s amended complaint 

complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without 

reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists because, as a general rule, an amended 

complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 

1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being 

treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ”).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on November 25, 2024 are 

VACATED; 

2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within thirty days from the date of 

service of this order; and

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation for dismissal of 

the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01195-KES-SAB Document 11 Filed 12/10/24 Page 2 of 2