Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05801-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN WALKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S.A., eta. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 5801 AWI LJO P 

ORDER STRIKING SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT FROM RECORD (Doc. 56)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF TIME TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN

COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2004.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK DOCUMENTS

Kevin Walker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 25, 2002. Prior to the Court’s review of the

Complaint, Plaintiff initiated personal service on the Defendants named in the action as well as

other unnamed Defendants. 

On February 25, 2004, the Court screened the Complaint in compliance with the Prison

Litigation Reform Action and found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the

Eighth Amendment against the U.S.A., Taft Correctional Institution (“TCI”), Warden Andrews,

Dr. J. Akanno, and John Does 1 through three. (Doc. 49.) The Court did find that the

Complaint stated a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and

dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff was directed to either file an Amended

Complaint that cured the deficiencies outlined by the Court or inform the Court of his intent to

proceed on the Federal Tort Claims Act claim. 

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 70 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 4
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

On March 15, 2004, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Correct the Record.” In this pleading,

Plaintiff informed the Court that he had obtained the help of family and friends to effect service

and had, through them, filed an Amended Complaint on September 2, 2003, which was attached

to his “Motion to Correct Record.” However, as this Complaint was created prior tot he Court’s

issuance of its Order dismissing with leave to amend, the Court informed Plaintiff that he could

not file that Complaint because it was not in compliance with the Court’s Order to Amend. 

On March 19, 2004, Plaintiff filed the very Complaint he was told he could not submit. 

The Complaint was identical to that submitted with the Motion to Correct the Record and was

signed in September 2003 and further indicates he sent it to his family. The Court issued an

Order on April 5, 2005, striking the Complaint from the record and granting Plaintiff additional

time to comply with the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend. (Doc. 55.)

On May 4, 2004, Plaintiff filed a “Second Amended Complaint.” The Court has

reviewed this Complaint and finds that Plaintiff has again failed to comply with the Court’s

Order Dismissing with Leave to Amend. 

The Complaint submitted on May 24, 2004, was signed by Plaintiff on April 28, 2004. It

appears that Plaintiff believes by simply signing a document on a different date, it will render the

Complaint in compliance with the Court’s order. However, a thorough examination of the

Second Amended Complaint reveals that, but for the newly added paragraph numbers and new

signature, it is identical in its contents to the Complaint stricken from the record and the

Complaint attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the Record, both of which Plaintiff was

informed he could not file because they were not in compliance with the Court’s Order

dismissing with leave to amend. The Court has expended considerable time and resources

screening the original complaint filed in this Court and Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to bring

before the Court a Complaint which necessarily does not comply with the Court’s Order because

it was drafted prior to this Court’s review of his allegations, is simply unacceptable. The Court

will, however, in the interests of justice, grant Plaintiff an additional opportunity to provide an

Amended Complaint drafter only after Plaintiff has carefully considered the deficiencies outlined

in the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend. 

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 70 Filed 07/18/05 Page 2 of 4
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

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Second Amended Complaint is STRICKEN from the record. (Doc. 56.); 

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to

submit an “AMENDED COMPLAINT” in compliance with this Court’s Order

dismissing with leave to amend dated February 25, 2004. 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a blank civil rights form. 

Plaintiff is advised that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an Amended Complaint be

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an Amended

Complaint supersedes the original Complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 

1967). 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. The Amended

Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED COMPLAINT,” reference the

appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury. 

Plaintiff should that the Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides:

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual connection or link between

the actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See

Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362

(1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a

constitutional right, within the meaning of section 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates

in another’s affirmative acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th

Cir. 1978). Thus, in order to state a claim for relief under section 1983, plaintiff must link each

named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 70 Filed 07/18/05 Page 3 of 4
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

plaintiff’s federal rights.

Plaintiff should also take care to ensure his Complaint is in compliance with Rule 8(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a complaint contain “a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is

and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

Finally, Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

Recommendation that the action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim on

which relief can be granted or to comply with a Court Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 15, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05801-AWI -GSA Document 70 Filed 07/18/05 Page 4 of 4