Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Garcia
Defendant
Gomez
Defendant
Hilderbrand
Defendant
Sumpter Porter
Plaintiff
Laquin Rivera
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUMPTER PORTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAQUIN RIVERA, et al.,

 Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00599-SAB (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 

TO THIS ACTION

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF THE 

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 17, 2024. 

I.

SCREENING REQUIREMENT

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 on which relief may be granted,” or that 

“seek[] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 5
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

1915(e)(2)(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

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)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Moreover, Plaintiff must demonstrate 

that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002).

Prisoners proceeding pro se in civil rights actions are entitled to have their pleadings 

liberally construed and to have any doubt resolved in their favor. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 

1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). To survive screening, Plaintiff’s claims must be 

facially plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to reasonably infer 

that each named defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss 

v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The “sheer possibility that a defendant 

has acted unlawfully” is not sufficient, and “facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s 

liability” falls short of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Moss, 572 F.3d 

at 969. 

II.

COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS

The Court accepts Plaintiff’s allegations in his complaint as true only for the purpose of 

the screening requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff is currently housed at Mule Creek State Prison and submits that he is set to be 

paroled on June 25, 2024. Plaintiff names all staff in incident report employed at California State 

Prison, Los Angeles County and Mule Creek State Prison. 

Plaintiff alleges as follows:

They have fuck over me and a lot of others during my stay, and there job is to keep us and 

not let us go please believe me, me just come and talk to everybody I’ve touch in my 

building chart. Please come and talk to me before its to late for everyone here in prison. 

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 5
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

(Compl. at 4.) 

None of these facts involve events that were alleged in Plaintiff’s original complaint. The 

allegations and the Defendants named in the first amended complaint are entirely different from 

the allegations in Plaintiff's original complaint. The original complaint alleged constitution 

violations for events that occurred while Plaintiff was housed at North Kern State Prison and 

against different Defendants, who are not now named. In Plaintiff’s original complaint, Plaintiff 

named as Defendants in this case, (1) officer Laquin Rivera, (2) officer Gomez, (3) officer 

Hilderbrand, and (4) sergeant Garcia. 

III.

DISCUSSION

A. Failure to Comply with Court Order

In the Court’s screening order issued on June 6, 2024, Plaintiff was informed that he may 

amend the complaint to cure the deficiencies that the Court identified in screening the original 

complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff was expressly cautioned that “Plaintiff may not change the 

nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated claims in his first amended complaint.” (ECF No. 7 at 

5.) 

Plaintiff failed to follow the admonitions of the Court. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint 

changes the very nature of the suit by adding new claims, arising out of California State Prison, 

Los Angeles County and Mule Creek State Prison and against different Defendants, officers and

employees at those prisons. Plaintiff’s original complaint, however, alleged claims for events that 

occurred while he was housed at North Kern State Prison, against officers and employees of 

North Kern State Prison. Thus, because the first amended complaint alleges new and different 

claims against new and different Defendants, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is in violation of 

the Court’s order. The Court will not expend its scarce resources to screen improper allegations.1 

The new allegations arising out of California State Prison, Los Angeles County and Mule Creek 

1 However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (as the original complaint) does not comply with 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff's complaint is short and plain, but does not include any specific factual 

allegations sufficient to provide Defendants with notice of the theory upon which they are being sued. See McHenry 

v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir. 1996); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 

1981).

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 5
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

State Prison belong in a separate lawsuit filed in the proper venue.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will grant Plaintiff a FINAL opportunity to 

amend his complaint to cure the identified deficiencies in the Court's screening order to the extent 

he is able to do so in good faith. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff 

may amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order 

regarding the original complaint.

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must 

state what each named defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 

[sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 

(citations omitted). Further, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, 

unrelated claims in his amended complaint. George, 507 F.3d at 607 (no “buckshot” complaints).

Finally, Plaintiff is informed that the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 

make Plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 

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

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ramirez 

v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (“an ‘amended complaint 

supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’ ”). 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff a civil rights complaint form;

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 

second amended complaint (or notice of voluntary dismissal);

3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in 

length; and 

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/01/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

4. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint in compliance with this order, the 

Court will recommend to a district judge that this action be dismissed consistent 

with the reasons stated in this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00599-JLT-SAB Document 13 Filed 07/01/24 Page 5 of 5