Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01846/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01846-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Defendant
Donnell Webb
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

DONNELL WEBB,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LOPEZ, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01846 GSA PC

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE 

IN THIRTY DAYS

I. Screening Requirement 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).1 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 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 

 

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on December 4, 2014 (ECF No 5).

Case 1:14-cv-01846-GSA Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 4
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

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or 

appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

“Rule 8(a)’s simplified pleading standard applies to all civil actions, with limited 

exceptions,” none of which applies to section 1983 actions. Swierkewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Pursuant to Rule 8(a), a complaint must contain “a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . .” Fed. 

R.Civ. P. 8(a). “Such a statement must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the 

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 512. 

However, “the liberal pleading standard . . . . applies only to a plaintiff’s factual allegations.” 

Nietze v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n. 9 (1989). “[A] liberal interpretation of a civil rights 

complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Bruns v. 

Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997)(quoting Ivey v.Bd. of Regents, 

673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff, formerly an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Kern Valley State Prison, brings this action against defendant 

correctional officials employed by the CDCR at Kern Valley. Plaintiff names as defendants 

Lieutenant Vega, Correctional Officer (C/O) Tangen and C/O Lopez. 

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint, filed in response to an earlier 

order severing Plaintiff’s claims from the original multi-plaintiff complaint and directing 

Plaintiff to file his own claims. Plaintiff’s statement of claim is that Defendants failed to lock 

up cleaning supplies and as a result he was injured. Plaintiff alleges that “directly after the riot, 

they put us back into a hostile environment with the same attacking latino inmates without my 

consent.” Plaintiff appears to allege facts in addition to those alleged in the original complaint. 

Plaintiff is advised that once an amended complaint is filed, that complaint supersedes the 

Case 1:14-cv-01846-GSA Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 2 of 4
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

original complaint and the Court will not refer to the original complaint in order to make the 

amended complaint complete. Plaintiff must set forth all of his allegations in an amended 

complaint.

Further, Plaintiff fails to charge each individual defendant with specific conduct. 

Plaintiff has not linked Defendants to any acts or omissions that violated Plaintiff’s federal 

rights. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to state claims against them. The first amended complaint 

must therefore be dismissed. Plaintiff will, however, be granted leave to file a second amended 

complaint. Plaintiff need not, however, set forth legal arguments in support of his claims. In 

order to hold an individual defendant liable, Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, 

describe where that defendant is employed and in what capacity, and explain how that 

defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should state clearly, in his own words, what 

happened. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant, by name, did to violate the particular 

right described by Plaintiff. 

III. Conclusion

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and finds that it does not 

state any claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. The Court will provide 

Plaintiff with the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by 

the Court in this order. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is 

cautioned that he may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his 

amended complaint. 

Plaintiff’s 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, Hydrick, 500 F.3d at 987-88. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual 

allegations must be [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell 

Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007)(citations omitted). 

Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original 

complaint, Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997); King v. Atiyeh, 814 

F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), and must be “complete and in and of itself without reference to 

Case 1:14-cv-01846-GSA Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

the prior or superseded pleading.” Local Rule 15-220. Plaintiff is warned that “[a]ll causes of 

action alleged in an original complaint which are not alleged in an amended complaint are 

waived.” King, 814 F.2d at 567 (citing to London v. Coopers & Lybrand, 644 F.2d 811, 814 

(9th Cir. 1981)). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend, for failure to state a 

claim;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff a complaint form;

3. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file an 

amended complaint;

4. Plaintiff may not add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended 

complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order striking the amended complaint; and

5. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will dismiss this action, 

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01846-GSA Document 11 Filed 05/18/15 Page 4 of 4