Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00777/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00777-1/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

JEREMIAH WOOLF,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF OF SHASTA COUNTY,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-0777 MCE CKD P

ORDER 

Plaintiff, a former county jail inmate, commenced this action on April 15, 2016. (ECF 

No. 1.) On May 23, 2016, the undersigned determined that the complaint stated an Eighth 

Amendment claim “for injunctive relief” against Shasta County, the sole defendant. (ECF No. 9.)

On October 6, 2016, plaintiff notified the court of his new residential address and stated 

that he was no longer incarcerated. (ECF No. 15.) On November 22, 2016, Shasta County 

answered the complaint. (ECF No. 16.) As an affirmative defense, defendant argues that, since 

plaintiff was released from the Shasta County Jail on October 4, 2016, any claim for injunctive 

relief is moot. (Id. at 2.) 

Though the complaint sought damages along with an injunction, plaintiff did not state a 

cognizable claim for damages against Shasta County. A municipal entity or its departments is 

liable under § 1983 only if plaintiff shows that his constitutional injury was caused by employees 

acting pursuant to the municipality’s policy or custom. See Villegas v. Gilroy Garlic Festival 

Case 2:16-cv-00777-MCE-CKD Document 18 Filed 12/05/16 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

27

28

2

Association, 541 F.3d 950, 964 (9th Cir. 2008), citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Services, 436 U.S. 

658, 690-94 (1978). As plaintiff did not allege inadequate medical care pursuant to a county 

policy or custom, the screening order specified that the operative claim was for injunctive relief. 

Generally, when an inmate seeks injunctive or declaratory relief concerning the prison 

where he is incarcerated, his claims for such relief become moot when he is no longer subjected 

to those conditions. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2001); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 

1365, 1368 (9th Cir.1995); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir.1991). In light of his 

release from Shasta County Jail, plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot and subject to 

dismissal.

However, plaintiff will be granted the opportunity to file an amended complaint in an 

attempt to state a claim for damages under the standard set forth the May 23, 2016 screening 

order. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court dismissing under 

Rule 12(b)(6) should grant leave to amend unless it appears pleading could not possibly be cured 

by allegation of other facts). Upon receipt of an amended complaint or the expiration of the 

period to file an amended complaint, the undersigned will issue further orders or findings and 

recommendations as warranted. 

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

complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v. 

Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the 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). If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, he 

should set forth a “short and plain statement” of his claim and any related claims against the 

appropriate defendants.

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

Case 2:16-cv-00777-MCE-CKD Document 18 Filed 12/05/16 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

27

28

3

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 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 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. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and

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

Dated: December 5, 2016

2/ wool0777.ord

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:16-cv-00777-MCE-CKD Document 18 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 3