Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01751-2/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEVIN LEE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. VALENCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-1751 KJN P

ORDER

Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C.§ 1983. On September 5, 2019, this action was transferred to this court from the Fresno 

Division of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 16.) 

In the transfer order, the Fresno Court addressed plaintiff’s second amended complaint. (Id.) The 

Fresno Court dismissed the claims arising at California State Prison-Corcoran (“Corcoran”) 

without leave to amend. (Id.) The Fresno Court transferred the claims arising at California State 

Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) to this court. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges violations of his Eighth 

Amendment right to adequate medical and mental health care at CSP-Sac.

On August 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of change of address stating that he was 

temporarily housed at the Los Angeles County Jail. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff requested that this 

action be stayed because he had to return to the Los Angeles County Jail on October 25, 2019, for 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 12
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

a Franklin hearing.1 Plaintiff requested that this action be stayed pending resolution of the 

Franklin hearing. 

On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice stating that he was still housed at the Los 

Angeles County Jail. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff also states that he no longer wishes to stay this 

action. (Id.) Accordingly, the undersigned herein screens plaintiff’s second amended complaint. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous when it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989), superseded by statute as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 

2000) (“[A] judge may dismiss [in forma pauperis] claims which are based on indisputably 

meritless legal theories or whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 

1227.

Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “requires only ‘a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the 

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). 

In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain more than “a 

 

1

 It appears that plaintiff is referring to a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 

(2016), under which a prisoner may make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth 

offender parole hearing. 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 12
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

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action;” it must contain factual allegations 

sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. However, “[s]pecific 

facts are not necessary; the statement [of facts] need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what 

the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 

(2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. at 555, citations and internal quotations marks omitted). 

In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the 

complaint in question, Erickson, 551 U.S. at 93, and construe the pleading in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974), overruled on other 

grounds, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).

Legal Standard for Eighth Amendment Claim

The Eighth Amendment is violated only when a prison official acts with deliberate 

indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs. Snow v. McDaniel, 681 F.3d 978, 985 (9th 

Cir. 2012), overruled in part on other grounds, Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 1082-83 (9th 

Cir. 2014); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). To state a claim a plaintiff “must 

show (1) a serious medical need by demonstrating that failure to treat [his] condition could result 

in further significant injury or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” and (2) that “the 

defendant’s response to the need was deliberately indifferent.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). “Deliberate indifference is a high legal 

standard,” Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004), and is shown by “(a) a 

purposeful act or failure to respond to a prisoner’s pain or possible medical need, and (b) harm 

caused by the indifference.” Wilhelm, 680 F.3d at 1122 (citing Jett, 439 F.3d at 1096). The 

requisite state of mind is one of subjective recklessness, which entails more than ordinary lack of 

due care. Snow, 681 F.3d at 985 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Mere ‘indifference,’ ‘negligence,’ or ‘medical malpractice’ will not support this cause of 

action.” Broughton v. Cutter Laboratories, 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing Estelle v. 

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976)).

Further, “[a] difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner—or between 

medical professionals—concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 12
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

deliberate indifference.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 987 (citing Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th 

Cir. 1989)). Rather, a plaintiff is required to show that the course of treatment selected was 

“medically unacceptable under the circumstances” and that the defendant “chose this course in 

conscious disregard of an excessive risk to plaintiff’s health.” Snow, 681 F.3d at 988 (quoting 

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996)).

Legal Standard for Linking Defendants to Alleged Deprivations

The Civil Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows:

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 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 Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (“Congress did not intend § 1983 

liability to attach where . . . causation [is] absent.”); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (no 

affirmative link between the incidents of police misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy 

demonstrating their authorization or approval of such misconduct). “A person ‘subjects’ another 

to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of § 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).

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979) 

(no liability where there is no allegation of personal participation); Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 

438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978) (no liability where there is no evidence of personal participation), cert. 

denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of 

official personnel in civil rights violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 12
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

5

F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (complaint devoid of specific factual allegations of personal 

participation is insufficient).

Plaintiff’s Claims

Named as defendants are CSP-Sac Chief of Mental Health Valencia, CSP-Sac Psychiatrist 

Swartwrut, Chief of HCCAB Gates and Supervisor Pleschuk.2 (ECF No. 12 at 3.)

Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to live in hazardous, inhumane and unsafe conditions 

in the “PSW” at CSP-Sac from February 2018 to August 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he 

should have been housed in ASU at that time. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that while he was housed in 

PSW, he showed many signs of mental illness, psychosis, depression, etc. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges 

that he expressed his concerns in writing to defendants Valencia, Swartwrut, Gates and Pleschuk, 

via grievances. (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he informed defendants that he suffered feelings of deterioration, pain 

and suffering and being unsafe. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he had these feelings due to constant 

cell and tier fires, smoke inhalation, unprotected contact with other inmates’ human waste, blood

and feces and toilet water flooding. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that no defendant attempted to 

remove him from these unconstitutional conditions of confinement. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that as 

a result of being housed in these conditions, he suffered mental deterioration, emotional distress, a 

scar on his left wrist after stitches were removed, etc. (Id.)

Plaintiff goes on to cite several grievances attached to his second amended complaint 

which he alleges informed defendants of the alleged deprivations. The undersigned discusses 

these grievances herein.

SAC P-18-1227

In grievance SAC-P-18-1227, plaintiff wrote that he was housed in an inhumane 

environment. (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff wrote that he had been battered by Correctional Officer Ehers, 

Lao and Rodriguez. (Id.) Plaintiff also wrote that he was left in small cages for sixteen to twenty 

 

2

 Also named as defendants in the second amended complaint are Corcoran Deputy Warden 

Hence, Corcoran Warden Clark, Corcoran Supervisor Kyle and Corcoran Sergeant Burnes. (ECF 

No. 12 at 3.) The undersigned does not address any claims made against these defendants in the 

second amended complaint because plaintiff’s claims concerning Corcoran have been dismissed. 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 12
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

hours at a time with no restroom breaks or food. (Id. at 11.) Plaintiff also claimed that custody 

would not allow plaintiff to speak to doctors. (Id.) 

Grievance SAC-P-18-1227 was bypassed at the first level of review and granted in part at 

the second level of review. (Id. at 10.) The exhibits attached to the second amended complaint 

do not demonstrate that any defendant responded to this grievance. Accordingly, the undersigned 

finds that grievance SAC-P-18-1227 does not link any defendant to the alleged deprivations. 

SAC-P-18-1409

In SAC-P-1409, plaintiff alleged a delay in having stitches removed. (Id. at 

15.) The exhibits attached to the second amended complaint do not demonstrate that any 

defendant responded to this grievance. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that grievance SACP-1227 does not link any defendant to the alleged deprivations. 

SAC-P-18-2793

In SAC-P-18-2793, plaintiff wrote that custody and mental health staff were refusing to 

provide him with any health care. (Id. at 39.) Plaintiff wrote that suicidal inmates were setting 

fires. (Id.) The exhibits attached to the second amended complaint do not demonstrate that any 

defendant responded to this grievance. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that grievance SACP-18-2793 does not link any defendant to the alleged deprivations. 

SAC-P-18-1644

In SAC-P-18-1644, plaintiff wrote that he was being tortured and that prison officials 

were conspiring to kill him. (Id. at 45.) The exhibits attached to the second amended complaint 

do not demonstrate that any defendant responded to this grievance. Accordingly, the undersigned 

finds that grievance SAC-P-18-1644 does not link any defendant to the alleged deprivations. 

SAC-HC-18001062

In SAC-HC-18001062, signed by plaintiff on May 1, 2018, plaintiff wrote that he 

persistently asked the psych tech to remove the stitches, which had been in his left wrist for a long 

time. (Id. at 17.) Plaintiff wrote that the stitches hindered his ability to take a shower and 

irritated his skin. (Id.) Plaintiff also asked to speak to a psychologist because he was

overwhelmed by thoughts of fear and suicidal ideations. (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff alleged that he 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6 of 12
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

7

received inadequate mental health treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that custody and mental 

health staff conspired to provide him with inadequate mental health treatment. (Id.) Plaintiff 

alleged that Dr. Thayer told him, for his own good, to request a lower level of care. (Id.) Plaintiff 

claimed that Dr. Thayer told him that “if his looks haven’t helped to better my mental illness then 

he don’t know what will.” (Id.) This grievance contains the signatures of defendants Valencia 

and Pleschek at the Institutional Level of review, indicating that plaintiff’s grievance was 

accepted. (Id. at 17.) 

On June 21, 2018, defendant Swartwrut issue an Institutional Response to grievance SACHC-18001062 finding that no intervention was required. (Id. at 23, 31.) The response states that 

plaintiff raised two issues in the grievance: inadequate mental health care and a request for a 

lower level of care. (Id. at 23.) Defendant Swartwrut wrote, in relevant part, 

On March 28, 2018 you were evaluated for Suicide Risk, 

documentation noted that you said, “I’m not suicidal, I just wanted 

to go get a new wrap for my wrist. I had stitches yesterday they did 

a video and tied a knot with the gauze and now it’s loose and falling 

off.” The clinician evaluating you that day noted that you were not 

a risk to yourself or others and cleared you to return to housing. 

(Id. at 31.) 

In his appeal to the Headquarters Level, plaintiff wrote that he was not seeking a lower 

level of care. (Id. at 19.) Attached as an exhibit to the second amended complaint is the 

Headquarters’ Level response to grievance SAC-HC-18001062. (Id. at 21.) It is not clear who 

prepared this response. However, this response addresses plaintiff’s claim regarding the failure to 

have his stitches removed and his claim alleging inadequate mental health treatment. (Id.) 

Regarding the stitches, the responses states that plaintiff received an evaluation for a requested 

dressing change to his left wrist on March 28, 2018. (Id.) “The affected area was assessed and 

visit notes recorded no redness, swelling, discharge or odor present, with sutures intact.” (Id.) 

“The area was cleaned with ointment applied and covered with gauze dressing.” (Id.) “It was 

noted that there was not an order for suture removal at that time.” (Id.) Plaintiff was scheduled 

for suture removal on March 30, 2018, but refused the appointment. (Id.) The sutures were 

removed on April 2, 2018. (Id.) The wound showed no signs of infection. (Id.)

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 7 of 12
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

8

Regarding plaintiff’s claims alleging inadequate mental health care, the Headquarters 

Level responses stated that plaintiff was currently enrolled in the Mental Health Services Delivery 

System at the Mental Health Crisis Bed Level of care. (Id.) “You have been provided with the 

opportunity to access mental health services and clinical staff regarding your health care 

grievance issues.” (Id.) “

Three defendants are identified in responses to grievance SAC-HC-18001062: Valencia, 

Pleschek and Swartwrut. However, it appears that only defendant Swartwrut reviewed and 

responded to this grievance. Therefore, it is not clear how plaintiff is alleging defendants 

Valencia and Pleschek violated his Eighth Amendment rights based on their limited involvement 

in the processing of grievance SAC-HC-18001062. Accordingly, the claims against defendants 

Valencia and Pleschek based on this grievance are dismissed with leave to amend.

In responding to grievance SAC-HC-18001062, defendant Swartwrut only addressed 

plaintiff’s claims alleging inadequate mental health care and did not address plaintiff’s claim 

requesting removal of stiches. However, it is clear that by the time defendant Swartwrut issued 

his response to this grievance, plaintiff’s stitches had been removed. For this reason, defendant 

Swartwrut’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s request for removal of his stitches did not constitute 

deliberate indifference. 

As discussed above, in his Headquarters Level grievance, plaintiff stated that he was not 

requesting a lower level of care, as he had requested in the Institutional Level grievance 

addressed to defendant Swartwrut. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff is not 

claiming that defendant Swartwrut improperly denied his request for a lower level of care. 

Based on the discussion above, the undersigned finds that the only claim plaintiff makes 

against defendant Swartwrut in connection with his response to grievance SAC-HC-18001062 is 

that defendant Swartwrut acted with deliberate indifference to his claims alleging inadequate 

mental health care. Plaintiff requested that he be seen by a psychologist and claimed that staff 

were conspiring to deny him mental health treatment.

Although the undersigned cannot determine when the Headquarters Level response to 

grievance SAC-HC-18001062 was issued, this response states that plaintiff was in the Mental 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 8 of 12
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

9

Health Crisis Bed Level of Care with access to mental health services. Based on this 

circumstance, it does not appear that staff were denying plaintiff access to mental health 

treatment, including access to a psychologist. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed with leave to 

amend. If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he shall explain in detail how defendant 

Swartwrut’s institutional level decision that grievance SAC-HC-18001062 required no 

intervention constituted deliberate indifference.

SAC HC-1800779

In grievance SAC HC-1800779, signed February 4, 2018, plaintiff wrote that he was 

paranoid, hearing many different threatening voices and having racing thoughts. (Id. at 25.) 

Plaintiff wrote the mental health treatment he received at CSP-Sac was inadequate. (Id.) Plaintiff 

wrote that his requests for “PIP” care were denied. (Id.) 

On April 20, 2018, defendant Valencia responded to SAC HC-1800779. (Id. at 29-30.) 

Defendant Valencia described plaintiff’s grievances as raising the following issues: failure to 

receive adequate mental health treatment, plaintiff did not want to take his mental health 

medication, plaintiff was denied PIP, and plaintiff would like to transfer to a different institution. 

(Id. at 29.)

In response to grievance SAC HC-1800779, defendant Valenica wrote, 

You were placed at the EOP LOC and MHCB LOC since you 

authored this grievance. As such, you have been receiving the 

appropriate treatment at each of those levels of care based on 

Program Guide Guidelines.

You were not currently prescribed psychotropic medication at the 

time of this writing. You have been seen multiple times by an 

MHMD since writing this grievance. You were able to voice your 

concerns about not wanting to take medications for Mental Health 

reasons. Your concerns were heard and no medications were 

prescribed. Additionally, you have not been assessed for meeting 

PC2602 criteria, nor has a judge determined you to be in need of 

PC2602. 

You were placed in a higher Level of Care (LOC), MHCB, the day 

after authoring this grievance; however, it was determined that you 

did not need Psychiatric Inpatient Program (PIP) LOC at that time. 

Additionally, you have been seen for two IDTTs since you wrote the 

grievance and neither interdisciplinary team concluded that you 

needed the PIP placement. You will continually be assessed during 

your 1:1 appointments and IDTT meetings for the appropriate LOC.

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 9 of 12
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

10

(Id. at 30.) 

It does not appear that plaintiff submitted grievance HC HC-1800779 to the Headquarters 

Level after receiving defendant Valencia’s Institutional Level response.

It is not clear how plaintiff is alleging that defendant Valencia’s response demonstrated 

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s mental health needs. Defendant Valencia noted that plaintiff 

had been placed at the EOP LOC and MHCB LOC since authoring the grievance. Defendant 

Valencia stated that plaintiff was not taking psychotropic medications, per his request in the 

grievance. Defendant Valencia stated that it was determined that plaintiff did not qualify for the 

PIP program. On its face, this response does not demonstrate that defendant Valencia acted with 

deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s mental health needs. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed 

with leave to amend. 

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed with thirty days leave to file a third 

amended complaint. 

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions 

about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., 

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how 

each named defendant is involved. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976). 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, 423 U.S. at 371; May v. Enomoto, 633 

F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official 

participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 

268 (9th Cir. 1982).

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 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This requirement exists 

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 

v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 10 of 12
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

11

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’” (internal citation 

omitted)). 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 second amended complaint is dismissed;

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Amendment and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Amendment; and

b. An original and one copy of the Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The third amended 

complaint must also bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Third 

Amended Complaint.” Failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order 

may result in the dismissal of this action.

Dated: February 7, 2020

Harr1751.14

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 11 of 12
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TEVIN LEE HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. VALENCIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2: 19-cv-1751 KJN P

NOTICE OF AMENDMENT

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court's order

filed______________.

_____________ Third Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:19-cv-01751-DAD-KJN Document 19 Filed 02/07/20 Page 12 of 12