Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01477/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01477-3/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

CRISTIAN JESUS PENALOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTAIN FRESNO COUNTY 

DEPUTIES,

Defendant.

No. 1:23-cv-01477-KES-EPG

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 

DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND 

(Doc. 12)

Plaintiff Cristian Jesus Penaloza is confined in Fresno County Jail (FCJ) and proceeds pro 

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter 

was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local 

Rule 302.

On March 1, 2024, the magistrate judge screened the complaint and determined plaintiff 

failed to state a claim for excessive force. Doc. 9 at 5. Among other deficiencies, the magistrate 

judge found that the complaint did not “correctly identify any of the defendants, either by name or 

by Doe Defendant 1, 2, etc. such that their names can be substituted at a later time.” Id. at 1. The 

magistrate judge provided plaintiff two options: (1) file a first amended complaint or (2) notify 

the court that he would stand on his complaint. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff filed a first amended

Case 1:23-cv-01477-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/10/24 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

27

28

2

complaint that appears to name defendants as D1 and DS2, but the complaint contains much less 

detail than the original complaint. See Doc. 10. The assigned magistrate reviewed the first 

amended complaint, and on March 12, 2024, issued findings and recommendations to dismiss this 

action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Doc. 12. The magistrate judge found that while 

plaintiff alleged that he was insulted and assaulted, he did not describe what he or the officers 

were doing when the assault took place, did not describe what happened in the assault, what force 

was used, and what led to the force being used. Id. at 5. Additionally, the magistrate judge found 

that plaintiff did not include sufficient distinct characteristics to identify the officers involved. Id. 

The magistrate judge also found that affording leave to amend would be futile because plaintiff 

was previously granted leave to amend yet failed to state a cognizable claim in the amended 

complaint, which included only conclusory allegations and even fewer facts than the original 

complaint. Id. at 4–6.

Plaintiff timely filed his objections on March 22, 2024. Doc. 14. In his objections, 

plaintiff provides physical descriptions of the officers he alleges assaulted him, provides 

additional details concerning the context of the assault, and further describes the assault. Id. at 1-

3. Plaintiff alleges that a defendant asked if he was a gang member, then hit plaintiff on the top 

of his head, and continued hitting plaintiff. Id. at 2. Plaintiff also alleges a defendant hit him 

using both hands and hit plaintiff while holding keys. Id. Plaintiff also alleges he was hit ten 

times and that he was injured as a result of the assault. Id. Plaintiff alleges the assault was 

unprovoked and that there is a female officer who witnessed the assault. Id. at 3. 

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this court has conducted a de novo review of 

this case. The findings and recommendations correctly note that the first amended complaint did 

not contain enough factual allegations to sufficiently state a claim for excessive force. However, 

plaintiff’s objections provide new and clarifying allegations concerning plaintiff’s claims that, 

when read together with the original complaint, suggest that leave to amend would not be futile. 

Pro se complaints should be liberally construed and may be dismissed only if the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts in support of his claim. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 2017). Accordingly, plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to file a further amended 

Case 1:23-cv-01477-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/10/24 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

27

28

3

complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, that complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Second Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff 

is reminded that an amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint. Ramirez v. Cty. of San 

Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (amended complaint supersedes a prior

complaint, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent). In addition, the amended complaint 

must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 

220. Thus, plaintiff must allege all facts in the second amended complaint concerning the alleged 

assault to support his claims for excessive force under the Fourteenth Amendment. Once plaintiff 

files a seconded amended complaint, the prior complaints no longer serve any function in the 

case.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations (Doc. 12) issued on March 12, 2024, are 

adopted in part;

2. The first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend;

3. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date of 

service of this order; and

4. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to file an amended complaint, this case will be 

dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2024 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01477-KES-EPG Document 15 Filed 10/10/24 Page 3 of 3