Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00396-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANIER CLAYTON,

Plaintiff, CV F 05 0396 LJO WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

D. FULKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This proceeding was referred to this court

by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the original complaint. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody

of the California Department of Corrections at High Desert State Prison, brings this civil rights

action against defendant correctional officials employed by the Department of Corrections at

Corcoran State Prison.

The allegations in the complaint stem from a decision in October of 2004 to place

Plaintiff in Administrative Segregation (Ad Seg). Plaintiff alleges that he was housed there for

“unknown reasons.” Plaintiff alleges that the disciplinary report that resulted in his placement in

Ad Seg indicated that “you cannot be housed on a dorm setting due to mental condition.” 

Plaintiff alleges that he was not posing any danger to other inmates or staff. 

Case 1:05-cv-00396-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 03/12/07 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

In November of 2004, Plaintiff appeared before the Ad Seg Unit Classification

Committee “and was removed to Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) because ‘S’ began to

exhibit unusual behavior and was subsequently escorted to the clinic for a mental health

evaluation.” Plaintiff was admitted as a “mental health crisis bed inmate.” 

On December 20, 2004, Plaintiff was placed on “paper tray status” for refusing to

relinquish his food tray. Plaintiff alleges that he did not refuse to relinquish his food tray on that

day, or any other day. Plaintiff also contests the validity of a disciplinary violation for refusing

another inmate. Plaintiff alleges that his record indicates that his “inability to cope with other

inmates” is well documented. Plaintiff seeks to be returned to single cell status and to have the

disciplinary charge set aside.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act. To

set forth an Americans With Disabilities Act claim, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that

he was excluded from participating in the jail’s programs or activities “be reason of disability.”

Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9 Cir. 2002); see also Memmer v. Marin County th

Courts, 169 F.3d 630, 633 (9 Cir. 1999). However, in his complaint plaintiff makes no claim

th

that he was excluded from participating in the jail’s programs or activities by reason of his

disability. Plaintiff contends that his disability was the motivating factor in placing him in Ad

Seg and taking him off single cell status. The allegations of the complaint, however, indicate

that Plaintiff was charged with disciplinary infractions that resulted in his housing situation. 

There are no provisions in the ADA for challenging classification or custody levels. The

complaint must therefore be dismissed. The court will, however, grant Plaintiff leave to file an

amended complaint.

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

Case 1:05-cv-00396-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 03/12/07 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

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 a

first amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local

Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and

must be labeled "First Amended Complaint." Failure to file an amended complaint in

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00396-LJO -WMW Document 13 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 3