Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05451/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05451-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY LEO KRAMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOM ALLMON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05451-HSG 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE 

TO AMEND

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Mendocino County Jail, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. His amended complaint (Docket No. 23) is now before the Court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). For the reasons stated below, the amended complaint is dismissed with 

leave to amend.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which 

are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary 

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). Pro se pleadings 

must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the 

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (omission in original) 

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Although a complaint does not need detailed factual 

allegations [in order to state a claim], . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his 

entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) 

(citations omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 

(1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that 

the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. 

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

B. Amended Complaint

The Court identified several deficiencies in Plaintiff’s initial complaint and therefore 

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Docket No. 9. In response to the Court’s order of 

dismissal with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed two amended complaints with the Court. See Docket 

No. 22 (filed on June 29, 2016) and Docket No. 23 (filed on July 1, 2016). The amended 

complaint filed on June 29, 2016 (Docket No. 22) sets forth legal claims regarding Plaintiff’s 

medical treatment and names five defendants. See Docket No. 22-2 at 2 and 3–17. The amended 

complaint filed on July 1, 2016 (Docket No. 23) names eight defendants but does not specify any 

legal claims. See Docket No. 23. The Court ordered Plaintiff to identify which complaint was 

intended to serve as the operative amended complaint. Docket No. 24. In a letter filed on August 

1, 2016, Plaintiff informed the Court that Docket No. 23 is the operative amended complaint. 

Docket No. 25 at 1.

In his amended complaint (Docket No. 23), Plaintiff names as defendants Mendocino 

County Jail Sheriff Tom Allman; Mendocino County Jail RN Robert Hurley; Mendocino County 

Jail doctor Medvin; medical program manager Claire Teske; Mendocino County Jail; Ortner 

Management Group; Mark Montgomery, identified as the vice-president of operations at Ortner 

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 5
3

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

Northern District of California

Management Group; and Tom Ortner, identified as the owner of Ortner Management Group. 

Docket No. 23 at 2. The amended complaint does not make any legal claims against these 

defendants. The amended complaint does not provide any narrative whatsoever. The following 

documents were filed with the amended complaint: Plaintiff’s state court habeas petition that is 

dated November 1, 2015; an October 21, 2015 inmate request form asking why his grievances 

have been denied; various inmate grievances complaining that he has been denied medical care; 

articles regarding mental health services at Mendocino County Jail; a letter previously filed in this 

action; an order issued in this action; and legal authorities discussing pretrial detainees’ right to 

medical treatment. Docket No. 23 at 4–44. 

As the Court explained in its March 1, 2016 Order of Dismissal with Leave to Amend, 

even at the pleading stage, “[a] plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that 

an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.” Barren v. 

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 

1988). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, a complaint must contain 

both sufficient factual allegations (i.e., names, dates, and facts) and legal conclusions (i.e., specific 

laws defendants allegedly violated) that create a reasonable inference of liability. See Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009) (“a complaint [does not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard] if 

it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”) (citing Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 557). Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint makes no factual or legal allegations 

whatsoever, the amended complaint will be DISMISSED with leave to amend. 

If Plaintiff choses to file a second amended complaint, he should describe how each 

individual defendant violated his civil rights, preferably by describing specific actions taken by 

each defendant, or specific instances when each defendant failed to take necessary action. 

Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, Plaintiff must 

include in his second amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of the 

defendants he wishes to sue. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court will not piece together allegations and exhibits from different filings.1 

Plaintiff is cautioned that exhibits are not a substitute for meeting the pleading 

requirements of Rule 8. The Court is not required to—and will not—sift through exhibits trying to 

piece together Plaintiff’s possible claims. Moreover, while exhibits are permissible, Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 10(c), they are not necessary in the federal system of notice pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The 

attachment of numerous exhibits to a complaint serves only to confuse the record, and slow down 

the screening and review process. If this action reaches a juncture at which the submission of 

evidence is appropriate and necessary (e.g., summary judgment or trial), Plaintiff will have the 

opportunity to submit evidence at that time.

Plaintiff is further cautioned that duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually identical 

causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. Bailey v. Johnson, 

846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988). An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats pending 

or previously litigated claims may be considered abusive and dismissed under § 1915. Cato v. 

United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. Plaintiff has 

another case pending in this court, Kramer v. Medvin, et al., 15-3780 HSG, wherein he alleges, 

inter alia, that Dr. Medvin refused to prescribe Plaintiff medication for his seizures and his 

migraines; refused to authorize an MRI for Plaintiff; directed Nurse Carli to deny Plaintiff aspirin; 

and refused to provide Plaintiff with medical care. Plaintiff should confirm that his claims in the 

instant action are distinct from his claims in Kramer I. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend, as 

 

1

The Court notes that in Plaintiff’s letter to the Court filed on August 1, 2016 identifying the 

operative complaint, Plaintiff attached numerous documents to his letter (e.g., inmate grievances, 

responses to grievances, and correspondence authored by Plaintiff’s state court attorney) and 

requested the Court include these documents with his amended complaint, identified as Docket 

No. 23. Docket No. 25 at 6–29. Plaintiff also made numerous factual and legal allegations 

regarding his medical treatment, id. at 1–5, that he appears to wish to include in his amended 

complaint. For example, Plaintiff stated that he wishes to name an additional defendant, that he is 

suing defendants in their individual and official capacities, and that he seeks compensatory and

punitive damages. Id. at 1 and 5. The Court will not “include” in an amended complaint 

allegations and exhibits that are filed separately. As discussed supra, Plaintiff must include all his 

factual and legal allegations in his second amended complaint. 

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

indicated above, within thirty (30) days of this order. The pleading must be simple and concise 

and must include the caption and civil case number used in this order (15-5451 HSG (PR)) and the 

words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Failure to file a proper second 

amended complaint within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this action. The 

Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a blank civil rights form along with his copy of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

8/22/2016

Case 4:15-cv-05451-HSG Document 28 Filed 08/22/16 Page 5 of 5