Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01463/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01463-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leo Lerma
Petitioner
M. Oneal
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LEO LERMA,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 1463 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING 

 COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

M. ONEAL,

Defendant.

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to

this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This action proceeds on the complaint. Plaintiff, formerly an

inmate in the custody of the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, brings

this civil rights action against defendant Sheriff’s Deputies employed by

Kern County.

The complaint in this action consists of a form complaint that

indicates Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but does

not allege any facts. The statute plainly requires that there be an actual

connection or link between the actions of the defendants and the

deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See Monell v.

Case 1:06-cv-01463-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 06/18/07 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

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S.

362 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[a] person ‘subjects’ another

to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the meaning of section

1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative

acts or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that

causes the deprivation of which the complaint is made.” Johnson v.

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

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). 

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

prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. 

Local Rule 15-220 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

Case 1:06-cv-01463-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 06/18/07 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

sufficiently alleged. 

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

1. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of

this order to file a first 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 "First Amended

Complaint." Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with

this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01463-OWW -WMW Document 10 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 3