Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01657/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01657-5/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-01657-CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is 

now before the court.

I. Screening Requirement

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).

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 

Case 2:21-cv-01657-WBS-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/23/23 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

2

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, Hosp.

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).

II. Procedural History

On October 13, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and gave him 

the option of proceeding on certain claims against several defendants, or of filing a second 

amended complaint to attempt to cure the defects with the remaining claims and defendants. ECF 

No. 12. Plaintiff elected to file a second amended complaint rather than proceed on the claims 

found cognizable in the court’s screening order. ECF No. 14. On November 28, 2022, plaintiff 

filed a second amended complaint that is nearly identical to the first amended complaint. ECF 

No. 17. 

III. Analysis

Rather than fix the deficiencies identified in the court’s prior screening order, plaintiff 

simply refiled a nearly identical copy of his first amended complaint against twenty-two 

defendants. Based on his failure to comply with the court’s screening order, the second amended 

complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff leave to file a third

amended complaint, but it must be limited to no more than 25 pages in length including 

Case 2:21-cv-01657-WBS-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/23/23 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

3

exhibits. 

If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the 

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or 

statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the third amended 

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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

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

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 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. 

IV. Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

The following information is meant to explain this order in plain English and is not 

intended as legal advice. 

The court is dismissing your second amended complaint because it is identical to the first 

amended complaint that the court previously screened and gave you the option to proceed only 

against certain defendants. You are being given one last chance to file a third amended 

complaint that is limited to no more than 25 pages in length including the exhibits. 

Although you are not required to do so, you may file a third amended complaint within 30 

days from the date of this order. If you choose to file an amended complaint, pay particular 

attention to the legal standards identified in this order which may apply to your claims.

Case 2:21-cv-01657-WBS-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/23/23 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

4

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

1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed for failure to comply with a court 

order.

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

amended complaint limited to no more than 25 pages including exhibits. Any amended 

complaint must comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice.

3. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to file a third amended complaint in 

accordance with this order, including the page limitation, will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order.

Dated: May 23, 2023

12/thom1657.14amd.new.pglimit

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01657-WBS-CKD Document 19 Filed 05/23/23 Page 4 of 4