Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01531/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01531-12/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

MARCHEA JACKSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1531 LKK PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

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

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was filed on August 1, 2005, and is proceeding on plaintiff’s

complaint filed that date. On February 3, 2006, the court directed the United States Marshal to

serve process on defendants Weaver, Miranda, Hunt, Mims, Hathaway and Runnels. On March

31, 2006, service was returned unexecuted for defendant Mims, and on April 19, 2006, service

was returned unexecuted for defendant Hathaway. On April 20, 2006, defendants Miranda,

Hunt, and Runnels answered the complaint. Service has not yet been returned for defendant

Weaver. 

By orders filed April 21, 2006, and August 8, 2006, plaintiff was directed to

provide additional information for service of process on defendants Mims and Hathaway,

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 As of September 12, 2006, 115 documents, including court orders, have been entered

1

on the docket in this action. Eighty-one of those docket entries are for documents filed by

plaintiff in the year since this action was commenced. 

2

respectively. Since that time, plaintiff has filed several motions by which he seeks, variously,

assistance locating these defendants for service or process, or to amend his complaint to clarify

the identity of defendants and/or claims. 

This action has been pending for slightly more than one year. Since the action

was filed, plaintiff has filed, inter alia, six motions for appointment of counsel, eight motions for

leave to file amended and/or supplemental complaints, six motions to compel discovery, two

requests for entry of default and/or default judgment, two requests for protective orders and/or

stays of discovery, numerous discovery requests, numerous letter requests for the status of

pending matters in this case, and various other letters addressed to the Clerk and/or the Court.

1

Plaintiff has twice been cautioned that the court views as excessive the number of documents that

he has filed in this action, and that sanctions may be imposed if he does not exercise appropriate

restraint. (See Orders filed July 19, 2006 and August 4, 2006.) In response to these orders,

plaintiff has not exercised restraint but has instead filed four letters concerning his excessive

filings, as well as several motions to compel and/or to amend his complaint. 

Plaintiff’s prodigious filings are making it extremely difficult for the court to

manage this action in an orderly fashion. The court will not allow the piecemeal filing of

supplemental complaints in this action. Moreover, the court will not respond to numerous

discovery motions filed seriatim before either the defendants or the court have had a chance to

respond to pending motions. In addition, it is improper for plaintiff to file requests for the status

of every matter pending before the court. Such requests clog the docket and consume scarce

judicial resources that are better spent attending to substantive matters properly before the court.

At this juncture, review of the record shows that it is appropriate to allow plaintiff

one opportunity to amend his complaint to identify by correct name each defendant sued in this

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 6
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

action and to raise therein all claims that he seeks to bring in this action. The court will not allow

the piecemeal filing of supplemental complaints in this action. Accordingly, plaintiff’s original

complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be given one period of thirty days in which to file

an amended complaint.

In the amended complaint, plaintiff must identify by correct name each individual

defendant that he claims has violated his constitutional rights in connection with the events

complained of. He must allege facts which show 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). Also, he 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. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to any 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. 

Finally, plaintiff will be directed to file his amended complaint on the form

provided with this order. The amended complaint must be clearly identified as an amended

complaint and must bear the case number assigned to this action. Failure to file an amended

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

complaint that conforms to all of the requirements of this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed. 

In order to ensure the orderly progression of this action, all discovery and motion

practice will be stayed until further order of court. Unless and until plaintiff files an amended

complaint that contains one or more cognizable claims for relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this

action will proceed no further. Once the court has received plaintiff’s proposed amended

complaint, the court will screen the proposed amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and will then make such further orders for the progress of this action as are appropriate. 

Defendants will not be required to respond to an amended complaint until ordered to do so by the

court, and the court will not make any further orders for service of process on unserved

defendants unless and until the court finds that service of an amended complaint is warranted.

With the exception of granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and

granting the requests to stay discovery, all outstanding motions will be denied. Plaintiff is

cautioned that he must not serve any further request for discovery on defendants, or any further

motion or other request for court action until further order of court. Plaintiff is further cautioned

that any violation of this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. The

court will advise the parties by subsequent order if and when discovery will be reopened, and

when motion practice may commence. The scheduling order filed May 31, 2006 will be vacated

and the court will issue a new scheduling order if and when the court deems it appropriate to do

so.

Only one of plaintiff’s outstanding requests requires further discussion at this

time. On August 25, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for a court order directing defendants to

provide him with a copy of the transcript of his deposition taken on August 18, 2006 to allow

him to make corrections. The court construes this as a request pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)

for review of plaintiff’s deposition transcript. In their opposition to the request, defendants have 

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 4 of 6
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

 To the extent that defendants contend that they are not required to provide plaintiff with 2

a copy of the corrected deposition transcript for his records, they are only partially correct. While

defendants will not be required to provide plaintiff with a copy of his corrected deposition

transcript simply so that plaintiff can have a copy for his records, they will be required at

appropriate stages of these proceedings to serve plaintiff with copies of all evidence, including

deposition testimony, on which they rely in connection with adjudication of the claims raised

herein. 

5

indicated their intention to provide plaintiff with this opportunity. No order is required from the

court and for that reason the request will be denied as unnecessary.2

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

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 

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

amended complaint that correctly identifies each defendant and that complies with the

requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules

of Practice; the amended complaint must be on the form provided with this order, must bear the

docket number assigned to 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 a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff the court’s form for filing

a civil complaint. 

4. Plaintiff shall file nothing further in this action except an amended complaint

until further order of court. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

5. Defendants Miranda, Hunt and Runnels shall not respond to an amended

complaint until further order of court.

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

6. All discovery is stayed until further order of court.

7. The scheduling order filed May 31, 2006 is vacated.

8. All motions currently outstanding are denied. 

DATED: September 12, 2006.

12/14

jack1531.14

Case 2:05-cv-01531-LKK -EFB Document 117 Filed 09/13/06 Page 6 of 6