Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06879/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06879-0/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JOHN RICHARDSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

J. AVILA, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 03-6879 REC DLB P 

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Pending before the Court is the complaint, originally filed in the

Central District of California and transferred to this court in December 2003.

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); 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend

may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. 

Case 1:03-cv-06879-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

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

Plaintiff brings action against two parole agents in the Merced Parole Department. He

alleges that his rights have been violated by a court order requring him to register under Penal Code

Section 290 as a “sexual predator.” He alleges that J. Avila, a supervising agent, required him to

register despite his underlying offenses being non-violent. He also alleges that Avila placed him on

High Control parole and violated him on 4 occasions for being under the influence of cocaine despite

him asking for help.

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and the removal of his registration requirement.

Plaintiff’s complaint is not in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Rule

8(a)calls for a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

Rule 8(a) expresses the principle of notice-pleading, whereby the pleader need only give the

opposing party fair notice of a claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). Rule 8(a) does

not require an elaborate recitation of every fact a plaintiff may ultimately rely upon at trial, but only a

statement sufficient to “give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.” Id. at 47. 

Plaintiff’s claims are vague and confusing. It appears that plaintiff is complaining about the

conditions of his parole but he fails to identify a constitutional right he claims was violated. It is not

clear what court imposed the registration requirement or when it was imposed. It is plaintiff’s duty

to set forth his claims in a manner that complies with Rule 8(a). It is not the duty of the court to

wade through plaintiff’s exhibits, sift out the relevant facts, and weave plaintiff’s claims together for

him. 

Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that sets forth separately each of plaintiff’s claims

and within each claim sets forth the facts that support the claim. Plaintiff must allege facts linking

the actions or omissions of the named defendants to the violation of his rights. 

To the extent the registration requirement was imposed in his underlying conviction, his

claim may not be cognizable under section 1983. Where “success in a . . . [section] 1983 damages

action would implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence, the litigant must

Case 1:03-cv-06879-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 3

first achieve favorable termination of his available state, or federal habeas, opportunities to challenge

the underlying conviction or sentence.” Muhammad v. Close, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 1304 (2004) (citing to

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying

Heck to a prison disciplinary hearing where good-time credits were affected). In any event, until

plaintiff files a complaint in compliance with Rule 8, the Court cannot determine whether plaintiff

has a cognizable claim. 

In summary, the Court finds it necessary to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court

will grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend to cure the deficiencies of this complaint. Failure to cure

the deficiencies will result in dismissal of this action without leave to amend.

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. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some

affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. 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). 

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

make plaintiff's 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 an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer

serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint,

each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

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

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

Case 1:03-cv-06879-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 4

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

number assigned this case and must be labeled "Amended Complaint"; plaintiff must file an original

and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 16, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06879-OWW -DLB Document 8 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 4