Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05891/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05891-0/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

)

MAURICIO MONTANO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

G. GALAZA, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1: 03 CV F- 5891 REC DLB P 

ORDER FOLLOWING REMAND

FROM NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF

APPEAL

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On July 15, 2004, the Court granted defendants’ motion to

dismiss this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and

entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeal. On July 20, 2005, the Court of Appeal vacated this Court’s order and remanded the case to

allow plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The Court of Appeal concluded that this Court should

have granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint even if no request to amend the pleading was

made.

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this

order. In doing so, 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). 

Case 1:03-cv-05891-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
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

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. Failure to file an

amended complaint as ordered will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 25, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05891-AWI-DLB Document 38 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2