Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02366-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM HENRY PRICE

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-2366 DFL CMK P

vs.

PAUL. T. PERSONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed February 27, 2006, plaintiff's complaint was

dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Currently before the court is plaintiff’s

amended complaint filed March 15, 2006 and the following motions also filed by plaintiff on

March 15, 2006: (1) “Motion for Leave to Amend;” (2) “Motion for the Court to Exercise

Supplemental Jurisdiction over Separate Claim” and; (3) “Motion to Compel Defendants to

Respond to Each Separate Claim...;”

As plaintiff was granted leave of the court to file an amended complaint within

thirty days, plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is moot. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 21 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 5
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

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 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. See 

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. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (9th 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.

See 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. See 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). 

Plaintiff is an African American Male, and he alleges that defendants

discriminated against him on the basis of his race, ancestral history and financial status. Plaintiff

alleges that defendant Pearson “failed to maintain a policy in which infringed on U.S.

Citizen/Plaintiff federal civil rights, during the U.S. Citizen/Plaintiff criminal action.” (Doc. 13

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 21 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 5
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

at 1:21-22.) Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant Pearson failed to maintain a policy to

protect the interests of pre-trial detainees, including African Americans. Plaintiff appears to

allege that defendants injured him by failing to assist plaintiff in defending himself against

criminal charges. The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s amended complaint so vague and

conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is frivolous or fails to state a

claim for relief. The court has determined that the amended complaint does not contain a short

and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Federal Rules adopt a

flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the elements of the claim

plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Community Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). 

Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts which defendants

engaged in that support plaintiff's claim. Id. Because plaintiff has failed to comply with the

requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the amended complaint must be dismissed. The court

will, however, grant leave to file a second amended complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to file a second amended 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 second

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).

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

order to make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that

an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 21 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Plaintiff is advised that should he file an amended complaint, he need not file separate 1

motions asking the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction or seeking an order requiring

defendants to respond to his separate claims. 

4

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 second amended complaint, the

original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a second amended

complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must

be sufficiently alleged. 

As the court has dismissed plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to file a

second amended complaint, plaintiff’s motions asking the court to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over his claims and to compel the defendants to respond separately to each of

plaintiff’s claims are moot. 

1

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint (doc. 15) is denied as

moot;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

separate claims (doc. 16) is denied as moot;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendants to respond to each separate claim

(doc 17) is denied as moot;

4. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed and;

5. 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 second 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 second amended

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

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 21 Filed 03/23/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

DATED: March 22, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02366-RRB-CMK Document 21 Filed 03/23/06 Page 5 of 5