Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00751-5/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

EDDIE D. KNIGHT, No. CIV S-07-0751-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a further extension of

time (Doc. 14).

On August 20, 2007, the court issued an order addressing plaintiff’s complaint. 

The court addressed defects in the complaint and stated:

Because it is possible that some of the deficiencies

identified in this order may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff

is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to amend, all

claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the

amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 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

2

(9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court

cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint

must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must

demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a

deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625

F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative

link or connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Because some of the defects identified in this order cannot

be cured by amendment, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend as to

such claims. In particular, plaintiff’s claim of inadequate medical

treatment cannot be saved through amendment because it is based on

alleged negligence. Plaintiff, therefore, now has the following choices: (1)

plaintiff may file an amended complaint which does not allege the claims

identified herein as incurable, in which case such claims will be deemed

abandoned and the court will address the remaining claims; or (2) plaintiff

may file an amended complaint which continues to allege claims identified

as incurable, in which case the court will issue findings and

recommendations that such claims be dismissed from this action, as well

as such other orders and/or findings and recommendations as may be

necessary to address the remaining claims.

Further, because the complaint appears to otherwise state a

cognizable claim against defendant Lea based on failure to protect,

plaintiff has a third option – he may choose not to file any amended

complaint and stand on the original complaint. If no amended complaint

is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be

dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for service of

process on defendant Lea.

Plaintiff now seeks a further 60-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. Good

cause appearing therefor, the request will be granted. This shall be the last extension of time. If

plaintiff does not file a first amended complaint with the time provided by this order, the court

will issue findings and recommendations that the claims identified in the court’s August 20,

2007, order as defective be dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for service

of process on defendant Lea.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a further extension of time to file an amended

complaint is granted; and

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this

order.

DATED: December 13, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 15 Filed 12/13/07 Page 3 of 3