Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01618/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01618-8/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM BRADLEY,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. VILLA, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 44.)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

UNENUMERATED RULE 12(b) MOTION 

ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION 

TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 29.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:

 (1) FILE A FOURTH AMENDED

 COMPLAINT, OR

 (2) NOTIFY THE COURT OF HIS

 WILLINGNESS TO PROCEED

 ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT

 VILLA FOR EXCESSIVE FORCE

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND 

PLAINTIFF A § 1983 COMPLAINT FORM

William Bradley (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 46 Filed 05/29/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On April 17, 2014, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending that 

Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion for failure to exhaust remedies be denied on 

procedural grounds, without prejudice to renewal of the motion, and Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted in part, with leave to amend. (Doc. 44.) 

On May 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a separate statement of undisputed facts which the court 

construes as objections to the findings and recommendations. (Doc. 45.) Defendants did not 

file objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 

including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 17, 

2014, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies is DENIED on procedural grounds, without prejudice to 

renewal of the motion;

3. Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is 

GRANTED IN PART, with leave to amend;

4. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff a § 1983 complaint form;

5. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is required to 

either:

(1) File a Fourth Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies found by the 

Magistrate Judge in the Findings and Recommendations of April 17, 

2014, or

(2) Notify the court that he does not wish to file an amended complaint, and 

instead is willing to proceed only on the excessive force claim against 

defendant Villa;

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 46 Filed 05/29/14 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

6. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the 

amended complaint AFourth Amended Complaint@ and refer to the case number 

1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA-PC;

1

7. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this 

case; and

8. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff is reminded that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey v. Maricopa 

County, 693 F. 3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in itself without reference to the 

prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Once an amended complaint is filed, the original complaint 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. Plaintiff may not change the nature of 

this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 

2007) (no“buckshot” complaints). The Fourth Amended Complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must 

state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff=s constitutional or other federal rights, 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 

2002). Plaintiff must set forth Asufficient factual matter . . . to >state a claim that is plausible on its face.=@ Id. at 

678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)). There is no respondeat 

superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. 

Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones, 297 

F.3d at 934 (emphasis added).

Case 1:10-cv-01618-LJO-GSA Document 46 Filed 05/29/14 Page 3 of 3