Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02943/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02943-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lee E. Haggerty
Plaintiff
Rob St. Andre
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE E. HAGGERTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROB ST. ANDRE,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-2943 CKD P

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. On January 2, 2024, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint as the court is required to do 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended 

complaint. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. 

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 that seek 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended complaint. The only claim upon which 

plaintiff might proceed concerns correctional officers failing to intervene as plaintiff was attacked 

by other inmates. However, plaintiff does not identify any of the officers. This being the case 

Case 2:23-cv-02943-TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/27/24 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

this action cannot proceed as no defendant can be served with process. Plaintiff is advised that 

John Doe or Jane Doe defendants cannot be served by the United States Marshal’s Service. For 

service to be successful, the Marshal must be able to identify and locate defendants. As a result, 

the complaint cannot be served at the present time.

Good cause appearing, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint with leave to 

amend so he can provide the names of the persons who stood by while he was attacked, if such 

names can be provided. 

As to the rest of the contents of plaintiff’s amended complaint, the allegations of 

conspiracy and retaliation are vague. The court cannot discern any basis for correctional officers 

conspiring against or retaliating against plaintiff and plaintiff does not point to any actionable 

injury suffered as a result of the suggested conspiracy and retaliation. In any 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, in his second amended complaint, plaintiff 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). 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). As with plaintiff’s original complaint, the only defendant identified in 

plaintiff’s amended complaint is High Desert State Prison Warden Rob St. Andre. But plaintiff 

fails to allege any facts suggesting Warden St. Andre was involved in a violation of federal law.

Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading to make 

plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. 

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

1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed. 

2. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-02943-TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/27/24 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

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.” Failure 

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

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: September 26, 2024

1

hagg2943.14(2)

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:23-cv-02943-TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 09/27/24 Page 3 of 3