Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01583-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Allen
Plaintiff
I. Korik
Defendant
T. Virga
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 

KEVIN ALLEN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T. VIRGA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-1583 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint alleging that Warden Virga 

and Rabbi Korik of CSP-Sacramento violated his First Amendment right to the Free Exercise of 

religion by denying him access to a kosher diet. By Order filed on September 16, 2013, the court 

denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and on grounds of 

qualified immunity.1

 ECF No. 43. Plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive relief were 

dismissed as moot (as plaintiff was no longer incarcerated at CSP-Sac). Id. The First 

Amendment claim against defendant Virga was dismissed with leave to amend. Id. Plaintiff was 

also granted leave to amend to state a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. Id. Therefore, absent further 

amendment, the action was to proceed only as on plaintiff’s claim for damages claim against 

 

1

 The denial of qualified immunity to defendants was without prejudice. 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 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 

2

defendant Korik. Id. 

On October 9, 2013, plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint (FAC). ECF No. 45. 

Plaintiff has previously been informed of the standards applied to determine whether plaintiff’s 

complaint can survive dismissal for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 37 at 4-5. In the 

amended complaint plaintiff alleges violations of both RLUIPA and his First Amendment Free 

Exercise rights by defendant Virga. The court finds there claims cognizable pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). However, although he refers to defendant Korik in the 

body of the FAC, he does not separately identify him as a party defendant at the outset as he does 

defendant Virga; neither does he allege that Korik violated his First Amendment rights or his 

rights under RLUIPA nor does he set forth any form of relief he seeks from Korik. 

Plaintiff does make reference to both defendants having engaged in a conspiracy to 

deprive him of his rights. In making a claim of conspiracy, plaintiff fails to alleged facts showing 

an agreement or a meeting of the minds on the part of defendants to violate his constitutional 

rights. Woodrum v. Woodward County, 866 F.2d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Fonda v. 

Gray, 707 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1983)); see also, United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge 

Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc). Conspiracy allegations must be 

supported by material facts and not be merely conclusory statements. Lockary v. Kayfetz, 587 F. 

Supp. 631, 639 (N. D. Cal. 1984). The conspiracy claims is further weakened by the fact that 

plaintiff does not make clear that he is proceeding against Korik as a defendant. 

Local Rule 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 Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 

2012) (“the general rule is that an amended complaint super[s]edes the original complaint and 

renders it without legal effect... .”) 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 sufficiently 

alleged. 

It appears unlikely to this court that plaintiff intended to abandon any claim of the original 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 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 

3

complaint which survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court will dismiss 

plaintiff’s first amended complaint with further leave to amend within twenty-eight days. 

Plaintiff is cautioned to incorporate all of his claims against both defendants in any second 

amended complaint. In doing so, plaintiff should not revive his claim of conspiracy between to 

the two defendants as he has provided no factual predicate for such a claim. Should plaintiff fail 

to file a second amended complaint, this action will proceed on the claims of the first amended 

complaint which has superseded the original complaint. However, before doing so, the court will 

recommend dismissal of any claim of conspiracy from the first amended complaint. 

 Plaintiff has requested the 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. 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). 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, although plaintiff does appear to be 

experiencing some confusion as to how to proceed in this action, the court has attempted herein to 

clarify what is required and does not at this time find the required exceptional circumstances. 

Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel will therefore be denied. 

 Finally, defendant Korik has filed a request for a protective order staying discovery until 

after plaintiff’s first amended complaint has been screened. ECF No. 46. Defendant Korik 

indicates he has been served with interrogatories predicated on the original, now superseded 

complaint, and has provided a copy of plaintiff’s interrogatories propounded upon him. ECF No. 

46-1. The court will grant the protective order staying discovery as to Rabbi Korik at this time as 

it is not clear that he remains a defendant. Upon the filing of a second amended complaint the 

stay may be lifted. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend within twenty-eight 

days as set forth above; 

2. Should plaintiff elect to proceed upon the first amended complaint, the court will 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 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 

4

recommend dismissal of both defendant Korik and plaintiff’s claim of conspiracy from this 

action; 

3. Defendant Korik’s request for a protective order in the form of a stay of discovery at 

this time (ECF No. 46) as to plaintiff’s interrogatories or any other discovery requests 

propounded by plaintiff upon him is granted; 

4. Plaintiff’s request for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 44) is denied. 

DATED: October 30, 2013 

AC:009/md 

alle1583.ord 

Case 2:12-cv-01583-TLN-AC Document 47 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 4