Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05105-6/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES G. STAMOS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMERIZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5105 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

(Doc. 40) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF BLANK FORMS AND

COURTESY COPY OF ORDER DISMISSING

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 26.) 

 James G. Stamos, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on

January 16, 2004.

On March 19, 2004, this Court screened Plaintiff’s original Complaint and issued an

Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff filed an Amended

Complaint on April 6, 2004. On July 15, 2005, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to

amend and granted Plaintiff to August 22, 2005, to file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff

moved for an extension of time on August 22, 2005, and September 19, 2005, which were

granted on October 4, 2005. Plaintiff then filed an extension of time on October 19, 2005. This

extension of time was granted on November 18, 2005. Plaintiff filed declaration on December 8,

2005, which was construed as a third request for an extension of time and was granted on

January 10, 2006. However, the allotted time passed and Plaintiff did not file a Second

Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations on February 13,

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 42 Filed 03/03/06 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

2006, that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. 

On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Continue Extension for

Amend” wherein he states that the delay is due to his not having a blank civil rights form. The

Court notes further that on February 22, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a document titled

“AMMEDED [sic] COMPLAINT - NON PRISONER.” The document also included a civil

cover sheet. On February 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Proof of Service” 

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). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

In reviewing the pleadings submitted, it appears that Plaintiff is attempting to comply

with the Court’s most recent order to submit a Second Amended Complaint, however, the

proposed Amended Complaint does not comply with the Court’s order in that it does not cure

any of the deficiencies outlined in the Order dismissing with leave to amend. In fact, the

proposed Amended Complaint is not on a form Complaint, does not delineate the claims for

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 42 Filed 03/03/06 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

relief, the facts that support it, whether Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and

does not state a demand for relief. The document consists of one page and is in narrative form. 

The words and sentences are so close together that it is extremely difficult to read. It is clear

from the Court’s review that the pleading does not cure any of the deficiencies outlined by the

Court. Thus, the Court will again dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. The Court will

also direct the Clerk of Court to send Plaintiff a courtesy copy of the Court’s Order dismissing

with leave to amend outlining the deficiencies in the Complaint and providing him with the

relevant law. In the event Plaintiff does not comply with the Court’s Order and submit the Third

Amended Complaint within the allotted time frame, the Court will forward the Findings and

Recommendations to dismiss to the District Court for resolution. Should Plaintiff provide the

Third Amended Complaint as required, the Court will vacate the Findings and Recommendations

and screen the case in due course. Plaintiff is urged to make his Complaint legible (readable),

not to include citations to case law or other extraneous information, and to separate out each

claim for relief with a brief statement of the facts that support his claim for relief. This will assist

the Court in determining whether the action states a cognizable claim for relief. 

Plaintiff is reminded that the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend issued in July

of last year and Plaintiff has sought numerous extensions of time for many reasons. The Court

cannot delay the case indefinitely awaiting compliance by Plaintiff. However, the Court does

recognize Plaintiff’s difficulties and that he has been released from custody and may not have all

of his documentation. The Court will provide Plaintiff with the necessary copy of the Order

dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend which provides Plaintiff with all that he needs to

formulate a Third Amended Complaint. Thus, the Court will not consider extensions of time

unless Plaintiff provides extremely good cause. As noted above, the Order dismissing the

Complaint issued last year and Plaintiff has had more than ample time to submit an Amended

Complaint that cures the deficiencies. 

The Third Amended Complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “THIRD AMENDED

COMPLAINT,” reference the appropriate case number, and contain an original signature made

under penalty of perjury. 

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 42 Filed 03/03/06 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

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SEND Plaintiff a blank civil rights

complaint form AND a courtesy copy of the Order dismissing with leave to

amend issued on July 15, 2005 (Doc. 26.);

2. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. WITHIN

THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL: 

a. File a THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT curing the deficiencies

identified by the Court in its Order of July 15, 2005; or 

b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file an Amended

Complaint and pursue the action but instead wishes to voluntary dismiss

the case. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in a

Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05105-LJO-GSA Document 42 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 4