Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02336/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02336-5/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

ROBERT D. REESE, Sr.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2336 GEB KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed December 15, 2006, plaintiff's amended

complaint was dismissed with leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff has now filed

the second amended complaint.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised

claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02336-GEB-CKD Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 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

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-

28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. 

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however

inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d

639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him 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 the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

In screening the two prior complaints, the court informed the plaintiff that

supervisory personnel are generally not liable for civil rights violations unless there is a link

between their acts or failure to act and the injury. In the second amended complaint, plaintiff

adds more supervisory personnel as defendants, without describing what they did or failed to do

with respect to his medical care. Instead, he relies on general allegations about their

responsibility to ensure that inmates receive medical care. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976);

May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations

are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02336-GEB-CKD Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 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

3

In addition, plaintiff has named a number of “outside” doctors as defendants,

alleging in conclusory terms that they were employed by and contracted with CDC. As noted

before, this is not sufficient to show that they acted under color of state law and thus subject to

liability in a civil rights action. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 55-56 (1988).

As before, however, the complaint simply fails to tell the court and any other

potential parties what happened to plaintiff and the role that each named defendant played in the

events. The court will again advise plaintiff to follow the model for preparing a complaint

outlined in McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996):

 1. Allegation of jurisdiction.

 2. On June 1, 1936, in a public highway, called

Boylston Street, in Boston Massachusetts,

defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle against

plaintiff, who was then crossing said highway.

3. As a result plaintiff was thrown down and had

his leg broken, and was otherwise injured, was

prevented from transacting his business, suffered

great pain of body and mind, and incurred expenses

for medical attention and hospitalization in the sum

of one thousand dollars.

Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against

defendant in the sum of one thousand dollars.

Before the court can determine whether the complaint states a claim, it needs to

know what happened to plaintiff and who acted or failed to act. There is no need to use legalstyle language; in fact, plaintiff’s attempts in this version of his complaint have not rendered his

claims any more understandable. In addition, plaintiff’s numerous exhibits do not help: plaintiff

has simply attached a large number of grievances and medical records without relating them to

any part of the complaint or otherwise explaining why he has included them. The court cannot

and will not rely on the exhibits to tell the story which plaintiff must provide. 

Once again, the court finds the allegations in plaintiff's second amended

complaint so vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is

Case 2:05-cv-02336-GEB-CKD Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 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

4

frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court has determined that the second amended

complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint

must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v.

Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at

least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff's

claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a)(2), the second amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave

to file a third amended complaint.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in

order to make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 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). Once plaintiff files a third amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a third amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-02336-GEB-CKD Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 4 of 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

5

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a

third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; the

third amended complaint should not include exhibits; plaintiff must file an original and two

copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance

with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the form for a civil rights

action by a prisoner. 

DATED: May 1, 1007. 

2

rees02336.14amd

Case 2:05-cv-02336-GEB-CKD Document 21 Filed 05/02/07 Page 5 of 5