Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02262/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02262-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Antonio Falcon
Plaintiff
M. R. Phillips
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN ANTONIO FALCON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. R. PHILLIPS,

 Defendant.

1:10-cv-02262-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO 

AMEND THE COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 9.)

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND PLAINTIFF:

 (1) A CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM,

 AND

 (2) A COPY OF THE COURT’S ORDER 

 ISSUED ON OCTOBER 3, 2013

 (ECF No. 11.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE TO FILE SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. BACKGROUND

Juan Antonio Falcon (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action on December 6, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On December 16, 2010, Plaintiff 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no 

other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of 

the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all 

proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local 

Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

Case 1:10-cv-02262-EPG Document 20 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

The court screened the initial Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and entered an 

order on December 20, 2012, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave 

to amend. (Doc. 8.) On January 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 

9.) The court screened the First Amended Complaint and entered an order on October 3, 2013, 

dismissing this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim, closing the case. (ECF No. 11.) 

Judgment was entered on October 3, 2013. (ECF No. 12.)

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiff appealed the court’s judgment to the Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 13.) 

On September 4, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued an order vacating the judgment and 

remanding the case to the district court. (ECF No. 18.) The Ninth Circuit’s mandate was 

issued on September 29, 2015. (ECF No. 19.)

The Ninth Circuit’s order held, in relevant part:

“ The district court properly dismissed Falcon’s complaint 

because Falcon failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his 

placement in segregated housing as a result of his disciplinary 

hearing imposed an “atypical and significant hardship” on him 

“in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” to create a 

constitutionally protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 

515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (constitutionally protected liberty 

interest arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and 

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary 

incidents of prison life”). However, although it gave notice of the 

complaint’s deficiencies in the order filed on October 3, 2013, the 

district court did not provide an opportunity to amend with the 

benefit of that notice. See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 

1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint without 

leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the 

deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lopez v. Smith, 

203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth 

abuse of discretion standard of review). Although Falcon was 

previously granted leave to amend, the guidance in the prior 

order did not speak to the deficiencies at issue in this complaint. 

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district 

court with instructions to provide Falcon with an opportunity to 

file an amended complaint.”

(ECF No. 18.)

Pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s order, the court shall provide Plaintiff with another

opportunity to amend his complaint.

Case 1:10-cv-02262-EPG Document 20 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

On October 3, 2013, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff=s First Amended 

Complaint, filed on January 18, 2013, failed to state any cognizable claim upon which relief 

could be granted under ' 1983. (ECF No. 11.) Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, “leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires.” The Court shall 

now provide Plaintiff with time to file an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified 

in the court’s October 3, 2013 order, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000), 

and the Clerk shall be directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the October 3, 2013 order for his 

review. Plaintiff shall be granted thirty days in which to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

The amended complaint should be brief, but must state what each named defendant did 

that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or other federal rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8(a); Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 678; Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). There is no 

respondeat superior liability, and each defendant is only liable for his or her own misconduct. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676. Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter . . . to ‘state a claim 

that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Plaintiff must 

also demonstrate that each defendant personally participated in the deprivation of his rights. 

Jones, 297 F.3d at 934 (emphasis added). In order to hold an individual defendant liable, 

Plaintiff must name the individual defendant, describe where that defendant is employed and in 

what capacity, and explain how that defendant acted under color of state law. Plaintiff should 

state clearly, in his own words, what happened, describing what he saw, heard, or otherwise 

experienced. Plaintiff must describe what each defendant did to violate the particular right 

described by Plaintiff. Plaintiff should carefully review the court’s October 3, 2013 order and 

only include the claims he believes are cognizable. 

Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not 

for the purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 

507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints). Plaintiff has not been granted 

leave to add allegations of events occurring or claims arising after December 6, 2010, the date 

the original Complaint was filed. 

Case 1:10-cv-02262-EPG Document 20 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supercedes the original complaint, Lacey 

v. Maricopa County, 693 F 3d. 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and it must be complete 

in itself without reference to the prior or superceded pleading, Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an 

amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each 

defendant must be sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly 

titled “Second Amended Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original 

signed under penalty of perjury. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk’s Office shall send to Plaintiff:

(1) A civil rights complaint form, and

(2) A copy of the court’s order issued on October 3, 2013 (ECF No. 11);

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

a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in 

the October 3, 2013 order;

3 Plaintiff shall caption the amended complaint “Second Amended Complaint” 

and refer to the case number 1:10-cv-02262-GSA-PC; and

4 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-02262-EPG Document 20 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4