Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00727/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00727-2/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

LUIS GABRIEL RIO-SOSA

Plaintiff,

v.

FRED FOULK, et al.

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0727 KJN P (TEMP)

ORDER

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

By order filed January 14, 2015, plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed with 

leave to file a second amended complaint, which plaintiff has timely filed. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners who seek 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 2:14-cv-00727-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 01/20/16 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

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.

When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, 

the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and 

construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 

U.S. 232, 236 (1974). Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by 

lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, to survive dismissal for failure to 

state a claim, a pro se complaint must contain more than “naked assertions,” “labels and 

conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007). In other words, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements 

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have 

facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff 

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Attachments to a complaint are 

considered to be part of the complaint for purposes of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim. Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir.1990).

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. Therefore 

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 

an individual 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 

Case 2:14-cv-00727-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 01/20/16 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

27

28

3

(9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, it is well established that a state actor in a supervisory position 

cannot be held individually liable in a civil rights action for the constitutional violations of a 

subordinate. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). To state a claim against a 

supervisor, a plaintiff must aver some causal connection between the supervisor’s conduct and the 

violation. See Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir.1991). 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).

The first seventeen pages of the second amended complaint detail events that foreshadow

some sort of confrontation between plaintiff and another inmate or a correctional officer or both. 

After that, however, pages that plaintiff hand-numbered 18 and 19 are missing. The narrative 

jumps disjointedly from page 17 to page 20, where plaintiff describes a disfiguring injury to his 

nose and his “dazed” mental condition in the aftermath of an altercation that must have been 

described on the preceding two pages. This narrative confusion is not due to plaintiff’s writing: 

to the contrary, his handwriting and his prose are clear and easy to follow. Instead, it is apparent 

to the court that pages 18 and 19 contain essential factual allegations describing a physical 

altercation that is probably one of the central events of this lawsuit, allegations without which the 

descriptions of injury on page 20 are not complete. In fact, after the allegations resume on page 

20, more pages are absent: in total, the second amended complaint is missing pages 18, 19, 21, 

22, 28 and 32. 

The court has no reason to believe that plaintiff is at fault for these omissions. 

Nevertheless, the court cannot make a proper screening determination without a complete 

pleading. Therefore the court will allow plaintiff to file a third amended complaint that includes 

the allegations missing from the second amended complaint. The court will examine the third 

amended complaint according to the same screening standards described above. 

Plaintiff is admonished that he must submit the third amended complaint as a whole.

Plaintiff may not simply submit the missing pages by themselves and expect the court to 

piece the second and third amended complaints together. The court cannot refer to a prior 

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that 

Case 2:14-cv-00727-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 01/20/16 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

27

28

4

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This 

requirement 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 prior 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. Again, this means that plaintiff must submit all of his allegations, 

beginning anew with page 1, in the third amended complaint. It is not enough simply to 

supply the pages that, for whatever reason, were not submitted for filing with the second 

amended complaint.

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

1. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days of this 

order.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to include a copy of the second amended complaint 

(ECF No. 25) with this order.

Dated: January 20, 2016

/rios0727.screen

Case 2:14-cv-00727-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 01/20/16 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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LUIS GABRIEL RIO-SOSA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FRED FOULK, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0727 KJN (TEMP) P 

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT 

 Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order 

filed______________. 

 _____________ Third Amended Complaint 

DATED: 

 ________________________________ 

 Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-00727-TLN-DB Document 28 Filed 01/20/16 Page 5 of 5