Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00239/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00239-3/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROCHELLE WESTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRISTIN CRUZ,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv0239 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and proceeding in 

forma pauperis. Plaintiff has consented to have all matters in this action before a United States 

Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

On April 8, 2015, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has 

now filed an amended complaint, and a 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 

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/24/15 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

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where 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); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.

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. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); 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 Hosp. 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 her amended complaint, and second amended complaint, plaintiff again challenges the 

fact that she is in custody. As the court informed plaintiff when the court dismissed her original 

complaint, when a prisoner challenges the legality of custody and the relief sought is earlier or 

immediate release, the sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 

U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Further, the court cannot grant federal habeas relief until state court 

remedies have been exhausted with respect to the claim provided a basis for relief. See Picard v. 

Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). To 

the extent the claims raised in plaintiff’s complaint imply the invalidity of her incarceration, the 

claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). 

Plaintiff also asserts she has been denied adequate medical care, but her claims are vague. 

Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a violation 

of the prisoner’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-

05 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when the individual is deliberately 

/////

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/24/15 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

indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Id. Plaintiff has not alleged facts demonstrating 

deliberate indifference by a defendant to a serious medical need.

For these reasons, plaintiff’s amended, and second amended complaints must be 

dismissed. The court will, however, grant plaintiff one last opportunity to amend.

Along with the instructions included above, plaintiff is again informed that if she chooses 

to file a third amended complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of 

have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the third amended complaint 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).

Finally, plaintiff is again informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order 

to make plaintiff’s third amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 a third amended complaint, the original pleading 

no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a third 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 amended and second amended complaints (ECF Nos. 11 & 15) are

dismissed; and

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

amended complaint that complies 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 bear the 

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/24/15 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

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”;

failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: August 24, 2015

1

west0239.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00239-CKD Document 17 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 4