Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00313/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00313-6/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Lloyd Albert Payne, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 5, 2013. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed on June 23, 2014, against Defendants Gutierrez 

LLOYD ALBERT PAYNE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING 

DEFENDANT BUTLER’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

BE GRANTED, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THE 

EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLAIM AGAINST 

DEFENDANT BUTLER

(ECF No. 28)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO 

EITHER:

(1) FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR

(2) NOTIFY COURT OF HIS WILLINGNESS TO 

PROCEED ONLY AGAINST DEFENDANT 

GUTIERREZ ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT 

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE CLAIM

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 08/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

(erroneously sued as Gutierres) and Butler for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

On October 29, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against Defendant 

Butler pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) 

Plaintiff opposed the motion on November 17, 2014. (ECF No. 26.) On July 23, 2015, the Magistrate 

Judge issued findings and recommendations that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendant Butler be 

granted, but that Plaintiff be granted leave to file a third amended complaint clarifying his Eighth

Amendment claim against Defendant Butler. (ECF No. 28.) The order informed the parties that they

had fourteen days within which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. The time for 

filing such objections has passed, and none have been filed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and 

recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Plaintiff shall be required to either file a Third Amended Complaint, or notify the Court in 

writing of his willingness to proceed only on the cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate 

indifference claim against Defendant Gutierrez. Should Plaintiff choose to proceed only on his Eighth 

Amendment claim against Defendant Gutierrez, then the Court will order Defendant Gutierrez to 

answer the Second Amended Complaint, and shall dismiss Defendant Butler from this action.

Should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, the third amended complaint should be brief, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but must state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of 

Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 

1949 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right 

to relief above the speculative level. . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 

S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007) (citations omitted). Each defendant is only liable for his or her own 

misconduct. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677. Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendant personally 

participated in the deprivation of his rights. Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, he may not 

change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George v. 

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 08/21/15 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Also, if Plaintiff decides to file 

an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint, 

Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete in 

itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading, Local Rule 220. The amended complaint 

should be clearly and boldly titled “Third Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, 

and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on July 23, 2015, are ADOPTED IN 

FULL; 

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on October 29, 2014, is GRANTED, with leave to 

amend;

3. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to 

EITHER:

(1) File a third amended complaint; OR

(2) Notify the court of his willingness to proceed only against Defendant Gutierrez 

on his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim;

4. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff an amended complaint form;

5. Should Plaintiff choose to amend his complaint, he shall caption the amended 

complaint “Third Amended Complaint” and refer to case number 1:13-cv-00313-LJOBAM PC; 

6. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with this order, the Court shall dismiss his 

action for failure to comply with a court order; and

7. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings consistent 

with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 20, 2015

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

 United States District Judge

Case 1:13-cv-00313-LJO-BAM Document 29 Filed 08/21/15 Page 3 of 3