Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02185-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abbott
Defendant
Gregory C. Bontemps
Plaintiff
Neves
Defendant
Salinas
Defendant
Shillford
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY C. BONTEMPS,

Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-2185 AC P

vs.

SALINAS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his

complaint for damages and injunctive relief filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On November 26, 2012, the court ordered that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed

with leave to amend. See ECF No. 10. The court noted that plaintiff had not raised any claims

against defendant Salinas, but offered the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint in case

he wished to do so. Id. at 5. The court additionally noted that plaintiff had articulated colorable 

First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Neves, Abbott, and Shillford. 

Id.

In response to the court’s order, plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. He

has instead filed a response and a declaration which read that plaintiff does not wish to proceed

1

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 15 Filed 02/14/13 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

in this action against defendant Salinas. See ECF Nos. 12, 14. Plaintiff has additionally filed a

“Supplemental Complaint” against defendant Neves. See ECF No. 13.

Plaintiff may not supplement his claims against defendant Neves in a

“supplemental complaint.” Instead, if plaintiff wishes to add additional claims, he must do so in

an amended complaint. As noted in the court’s November 26, 2012 order:

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 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 sufficiently alleged.

See ECF No. 11 at 5-6.

The court will accordingly grant plaintiff an additional 30 days to file an amended

complaint, if he so chooses. 

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, 96 S.Ct. 598 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore,

vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not

sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

If plaintiff elects not to amend his complaint, the action will proceed against only

defendants Neves, Abbott, and Shillford on plaintiff’s First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendment

claims which were raised in the original complaint.

2

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 15 Filed 02/14/13 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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted an

additional thirty (30) days from the filing date of this order in which to file an amended

complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in the court’s proceeding on the

original complaint, against defendants Neves, Abbots, and Shillford only.

DATED: February 14, 2013.

 

ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AC:rb

bont2185.36

3

Case 2:12-cv-02185-TLN-AC Document 15 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 3