Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06593/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06593-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY W. TANKLSEY,,

Plaintiff, CV F 03 6593 AWI WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 

 AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

TULARE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a former Tulare County Jail inmate proceeding pro se in a civil action. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint. Plaintiff, formerly

incarcerated at the Tulare County Jail, appears to be filing a lawsuit regarding the conditions of

his arrest. Plaintiff appears to allege that two un-named “Sheriff Officers” falsely arrested him

and impounded his car. Plaintiff makes no other allegations.

Regarding any false arrest, when a prisoner challenges the legality or duration of

his custody, or raises a constitutional challenge which could entitle him to an earlier release, his

sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973);

Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991).

Case 1:03-cv-06593-AWI -WMW Document 35 Filed 03/17/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Where the complaint states a habeas claim instead of a § 1983 claim, the court

should dismiss the claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust, rather than converting it to a

habeas and addressing it on the merits. See Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 255 (9th Cir.

1997); Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995). Where the complaint

alleges claims that sound in habeas and claims that do not, the court should allow the non-habeas

claims to proceed. See Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d 675, 681-

82 (9th Cir. 1984).

As to the claim regarding his vehicle, the court assumes that the vehicle was

impounded pursuant to a regulation authorizing that storage of the vehicle of an individual taken

into custody. Plaintiff does not specifically allege whether the deprivation was authorized. An

authorized, intentional deprivation of property is actionable under the Due Process Clause. See

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, n.13 (1984) (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455

U.S. 422 (1982)); Quick v. Jones, 754 F.2d 1521, 1524 (9th Cir. 1985). An authorized

deprivation is one carried out pursuant to established state procedures, regulations, or statutes. 

Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. at 436; Piatt v. McDougall, 773 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th

Cir. 1985); see also Knudson v. City of Ellensburg, 832 F.2d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 1987).

Authorized deprivations of property are permissible if carried out pursuant to a regulation that is

reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

 Because the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to discern a claim for relief,

the complaint must be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file an amended

complaint. 

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to

make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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

Case 1:03-cv-06593-AWI -WMW Document 35 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 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

3

F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 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 April 12, 2005, first amended complaint is dismissed; and

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

second 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 amended complaint must

bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint";

plaintiff must file an original and two copies of the amended complaint; failure to file an

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06593-AWI -WMW Document 35 Filed 03/17/06 Page 3 of 3