Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00751-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE D. KNIGHT, No. CIV S-07-0751-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and

for appointment of counsel (Doc. 11).

On August 20, 2007, the court issued an order addressing plaintiff’s complaint. 

The court addressed defects in the complaint and stated:

Because it is possible that some of the deficiencies

identified in this order may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff

is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action. See

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Plaintiff is informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint

supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to amend, all

claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the

amended complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 09/24/07 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

(9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court

cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended

complaint complete. See Local Rule 15-220. An amended complaint

must be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

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). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative

link or connection between each defendant’s actions and the claimed

deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980);

Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Because some of the defects identified in this order cannot

be cured by amendment, plaintiff is not entitled to leave to amend as to

such claims. In particular, plaintiff’s claim of inadequate medical

treatment cannot be saved through amendment because it is based on

alleged negligence. Plaintiff, therefore, now has the following choices: (1)

plaintiff may file an amended complaint which does not allege the claims

identified herein as incurable, in which case such claims will be deemed

abandoned and the court will address the remaining claims; or (2) plaintiff

may file an amended complaint which continues to allege claims identified

as incurable, in which case the court will issue findings and

recommendations that such claims be dismissed from this action, as well

as such other orders and/or findings and recommendations as may be

necessary to address the remaining claims.

Further, because the complaint appears to otherwise state a

cognizable claim against defendant Lea based on failure to protect,

plaintiff has a third option – he may choose not to file any amended

complaint and stand on the original complaint. If no amended complaint

is filed within the time allowed therefor, the court will issue findings and

recommendations that the claims identified herein as defective be

dismissed, as well as such further orders as are necessary for service of

process on defendant Lea.

Plaintiff now seeks a 60-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint. Good cause

appearing therefor, the request will be granted.

Plaintiff also seeks appointment of counsel. The United States Supreme Court

has ruled that district courts lack authority to require counsel to represent indigent prisoners in

§ 1983 cases. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989). In certain

exceptional circumstances, the court may request the voluntary assistance of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991); Wood v.

Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). In the present case, the court does not at

this time find the required exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the request for counsel will be

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 09/24/07 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

denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint is

granted;

2. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this

order; and

3. Plaintiff’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

DATED: September 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00751-FCD-CMK Document 12 Filed 09/24/07 Page 3 of 3