Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03045/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-03045-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dexter Brown
Plaintiff
Edmund G. Brown
Defendant
Duffy
Defendant
State of California
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 

DEXTER BROWN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-03045 JFM (PC) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, and is proceeding in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302. 

On December 19, 2012 plaintiff initiated this action, asserting three claims against 

defendants the State of California, Edmund G. Brown and Warden Brian Duffy. ECF No. 1. In 

Claim I of his original complaint, plaintiff asserted that his primary care physician ordered 

plaintiff a typewriter due to his carpal tunnel syndrome but that correctional administrators 

refused to provide him with one. See ECF No. 5. In Claims II and II of his original complaint, 

the court found that plaintiff was attempting to raise an access to the courts claim. See id. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. Id. Plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints are now before the court. 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 11
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

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 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). 

 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th 

Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an 

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 

490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully 

pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227. 

 A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in 

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 

U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer v. Roosevelt 

Lake Log Owners Ass’n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under 

this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital 

Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light 

most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff’s favor, Jenkins v. 

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

II. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

 In his first amended complaint, filed on May 6, 2013, plaintiff names sixteen defendants: 

the State of California, Duffy, Matthew Cates, P. Tucker, D. Ramirez, Brown, Gehm, Governor 

Edmund G. Brown, Cheng, P. Mirich, Becerra, Bass, Providence, Sinkovich, Spaulding, and R. 

Brady. ECF No. 10. In his first amended complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. 

Plaintiff does contend that the named defendants all were, and/or 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 11
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

are collectively engaging in the following acts or omissions: 

A. Withholding a disability accommodation (i.e. typewriter) 

ordered by a physician to facilitate plaintiff’s communication with 

the court, and to prevent continued pain/injury to plaintiff’s wrist 

and hand by the repetitive motion of handwriting. 

B. Depriving plaintiff of the physical therapy and pain medication 

ordered by a physician to treat the pain in plaintiff’s left hand (used 

for handwriting). 

C. Stealing documents (evidence) from the cell of plaintiff. 

D. Confiscating and possibly destroying eight (8) boxes of legal 

documents necessary to plaintiff’s effective prosecution of civil 

complaints and habeas corpus petitions. Then refusing plaintiff’s 

repeated requests to access them. 

E. Placing plaintiff on administrative segregation status (a.k.a. 

isolation) under false pretexts so as to murder plaintiff, and 

intercept, censor, pilfer evidence from, divert, and/or destroying 

plaintiff’s legal/regular U.S. mail. 

F. Violating California State Code of Regulations by refusing to 

process written requests submitted to officers by plaintiff, so as to 

prevent plaintiff from creating a written record of outgoing mail to 

the courts. 

G. Depriving plaintiff of adequate access to law library resources, 

then affirming a declaration under oath and penalty of perjury 

containing false statements of material facts to conceal said 

inadequate access. 

H. Depriving plaintiff of the one and only administrative means in 

which plaintiff can report criminal predation by prison personnel, 

and redress the acts/omissions giving rise to this instant civil rights 

complaints. 

I. [D]eliberately and knowingly subjecting plaintiff to wanton, 

suffering and anguish so as to compel plaintiff to stop “snitching” 

(i.e. informing on them) or being a “rat.” Them as used in this 

paragraph refers to correctional officers and their workplace 

associates. 

Id. at 7, 9. Plaintiff also alleges there have been “attempts to murder plaintiff,” and plaintiff has 

been deprived “of exercise and recreation for over a year.” Id. at 10. 

 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint contains no specific charging allegations as to any of 

the sixteen named defendants. The court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint so vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the current action is 

frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. The court has determined that the first amended 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 3 of 11
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

complaint does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 

Although the Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice 

and state the elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 

F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff must allege with at least some degree of particularity 

overt acts which defendants engaged in that support plaintiff’s claim. Id. Because plaintiff has 

failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), the first amended complaint 

must be dismissed. 

III. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 

 On May 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint naming the following five 

defendants: the State of California, Edmund G. Brown, Matthew Cates, Warden Brian Duffy, and 

Dr. Habeeb Al-Mufti. ECF No. 11. In his second amended complaint plaintiff alleges as follows. 

Defendants Edmund G. Brown, Duffy and Cate, and “Captain Benton and Lt. Brown” 

who are unnamed defendants, were advised by plaintiff that his “CDCR form 22 requests” were 

being refused and plaintiff was deprived of written receipts of his outgoing mail. Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff has “suffered attempted murders at the hands of officers and medical personnel.”1 

Id. at 5. Defendants are aware of these allegations. Id. Defendants “knowingly and recklessly 

continued to allow the very prison personnel plaintiff is accusing of heinous crimes . . . to have 

custody over plaintiff, control[] over plaintiff’s health care, and control[] over every necessity of 

life needed by plaintiff to sustain him.” Id. at 6. 

“The accused prison personnel” have committed the following acts: intercepted plaintiff’s 

mail to the courts, press and government officials, “adulterate[d] plaintiff’s food with intent to 

murder,” deprived plaintiff of exercise time, stole evidence of attempted murder, and reduced 

“plaintiff’s hemodialysis treatment.” Id. at 7-8. 

Defendant State of California “deprived plaintiff of a disability accommodation” in the 

form of a typewriter that was ordered to prevent further injury to plaintiff’s wrists due to the 

 

1

 It appears plaintiff is alleging attempted murder by “prison physicians and custody officers” 

who he alleges “are working in concert to exacerbate previously diagnosed medical pathologies 

currently suffered by plaintiff so as to induce infection, illness, injury, and death to the person and 

body of plaintiff.” Id. at 65. 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 4 of 11
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

repetitive motion of handwriting. Id. at 8. With regard to plaintiff’s wrist pain, Dr. Sharrar, an 

unnamed defendant, prescribed plaintiff to stop handwriting, participate in physical therapy, take 

steroid injections and ice his wrist. Id. Thereafter, Dr. Sharra cancelled plaintiff’s physical 

therapy and discontinued his steroid injections and morphine prescription. Id. at 8-9. 

When plaintiff attempted to ice his wrists, Officer Tucker, an unnamed defendant, 

instructed the nurses to withhold bags of ice from plaintiff and later to limit the amount of ice 

given to plaintiff each time. Id. at 9-10. Officer Tucker then instructed nurses to only give 

plaintiff ice in a cup rather than a bag. Id. at 10. Not having the ice in a bag limits the 

“therapeutic cold temp[er]ature to” plaintiff’s wrist. Id. 

“The accused personnel who process the inmate appeals” have refused plaintiff’s appeals. 

Id. at 11. “Plaintiff’s inability to use the inmate appeal system by reason of corrupt prison 

personnel is delaying and obstructing plaintiff[’]s efforts to obtain court review of life threatening 

problems.” Id. “The defendants are abusing their discretion in the improper and unlawful 

processing of plaintiff’s appeal submissions.” Id. at 13. 

In his claim for relief, plaintiff repeats the allegations set forth in his first amended 

complaint. Id. at 14. Plaintiff also requests a “preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and 

temporary restraining order.” Id. at 16. 

 While plaintiff refers to a number of exhibits attached to his second amended complaint, 

plaintiff failed to properly label any of the attachments with the corresponding letters referenced 

in his second amended complaint. Rather, plaintiff provided ten declarations in support of his 

allegations. See id. at 17-87. The declarations are styled as follows: “‘Torture’” pleading by 

plaintiff, a complement to the similarly entitled declarations of the torture series, 1/3, 2/3, and 

3/3” (id. at 17-21); “Declaration as to the plaintiff belief of the collusion of the internal affairs 

division” (id. at 22-29); “Torture Series 1/3 Declaration” (id. at 30-32); “Plaintiff’s declaration 

indicating ongoing criminal effort to obstruct plaintiff’s access to this court by corrupt prison 

officials” (id. at 33-38); “Destruction/theft of evidence declaration of plaintiff” (id. at 39-44, 55-

60); declaration regarding plaintiff’s carpal tunnel syndrome (id. at 45-50); “Pleading – as to 

CDCR 22 form” (id. at 51-54); “Declaration as to an ongoing conspiracy to murder plaintiff by 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 5 of 11
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 

6

agents of the State of California” (id. at 61-75); “Theft of evidentry [sic] documents possibly 

sanctioned criminal misconduct” (id. at 76-84; “Complaint against District Court Judge request 

that Judge Mueller be recused”2 (id. at 85-86). 

 In these numerous declarations, plaintiff reasserts many of the allegations found in his 

second amended complaint. Plaintiff also makes a number of conclusory statements unrelated to 

the allegations in his second amended complaint, and which identify unnamed defendants. To the 

extent the court can construe plaintiff’s lengthy declarations, plaintiff makes the following 

additional allegations. Plaintiff has been “diagnosed with severe chronic anemia” and as a result 

is sensitive to cold temperatures. Id. at 31. Plaintiff had a heater in his prison cell which was 

taken away from him or “deactivate[d]” by Officers Ramirez and Tucker, both unnamed 

defendants. Officer Ramirez and Nursing Assistant Roberts, also an unnamed defendant, refused 

to “reactivate” plaintiff’s heater, saying “Why should he have a private heater when everyone else 

doesn’t?” and “show me anything in writing which say [sic] I have to turn that heater back on.” 

Id. When plaintiff tried to use hot tap water to stay warm, Officer Ramirez shut off the hot water. 

Id. Officer Ramirez and Nursing Assistant Roberts then asked plaintiff if he was okay, if he 

wanted any ice, and told him it was “going to be a long night.” Id. Plaintiff alleges Nursing 

Assistant Roberts and Officers Ramirez and Tucker “intended to cause plaintiff . . . prolonged 

suffering, pain and misery.” Id. at 32. 

 Plaintiff’s wheelchair was searched by an Officer R. Gonzales, also not a named 

defendant, “because of a missing shower fixture.” Id. at 39. Officers Abila and Spong, unnamed 

defendants, “ransacked [plaintiff’s] documents under the pretext of a missing shower fixture.” 

Plaintiff alleges that his documents “were the true target” of the search. Id. at 43. 

 As with plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the court finds the allegations in plaintiff’s 

second amended complaint so vague and conclusory that it is unable to determine whether the 

current action is frivolous or fails to state a claim for relief. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

does not contain a short and plain statement as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the 

 

2

 Plaintiff’s “complaint” regarding District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller concerns are an unrelated 

federal action and will not be addressed by the undersigned in this order on plaintiff’s first and 

second amended complaints. See Case No. 2:12-cv-02321 KJM DAD (PC). 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 6 of 11
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 

7

Federal Rules adopt a flexible pleading policy, a complaint must give fair notice and state the 

elements of the claim plainly and succinctly. Jones, 733 F.2d at 649. Moreover, as drafted, the 

court cannot determine who plaintiff intends to name as defendants. Rule 10(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint include a caption identifying all of the parties. 

 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains no specific charging allegations as to the 

named defendants Edmund G. Brown, Matthew Cates, Warden Brian Duffy or Dr. Habeeb AlMufti. 

 To the extent plaintiff is attempting to assert a Section 1983 claim against defendants 

Edmund G. Brown, Matthew Cates and Warden Brian Duffy, plaintiff is advised that the Civil 

Rights Act under which this action was filed provides as follows: 

Every person who, under color of [state law] . . . subjects, or causes 

to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution . . . shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 

law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statute requires that there be an actual connection or link between the 

actions of the defendants and the deprivation alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff. See 

Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 

(1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional right, within the 

meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s affirmative acts or 

omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the deprivation of which 

complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Moreover, supervisory personnel are generally not liable under § 1983 for the actions of 

their employees under a theory of respondeat superior and, therefore, when a named defendant 

holds a supervisorial position, the causal link between him and the claimed constitutional 

violation must be specifically alleged. See Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979); 

Mosher v. Saalfeld, 589 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 941 (1979). Vague 

and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Here, as with plaintiff’s original and first amended complaints, plaintiff has failed to 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 7 of 11
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 

8

establish a causal link between the named supervisory defendants and his alleged constitutional 

violations. 

 To the extent plaintiff seeks to state a due process claim predicated on the named 

defendants’ alleged failure to process grievances filed by plaintiff, plaintiff is informed that 

prisoners do not have a “separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance 

procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Mann v. Adams, 855 

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988)). Even the non-existence of, or the failure of prison officials to 

properly implement, an administrative appeals process within the prison system does not raise 

constitutional concerns. Mann, 855 F.2d at 640; see also Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 

(8th Cir. 1993); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1991); Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F.Supp. 8, 

10 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (“[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer 

any substantive right upon the inmates. Hence, it does not give rise to a protected liberty interest 

requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the fourteenth amendment”). Specifically, a 

failure to process a grievance does not state a constitutional violation. Buckley, supra. State 

regulations give rise to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the federal 

constitution only if those regulations pertain to “freedom from restraint” that “imposes atypical 

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin 

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

 With regard to defendant State of California, plaintiff is correct that the State of California 

is not entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment because it does not apply to 

claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) brought against a state. See Clark v. 

State of California, 123 F.3d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Duffy v. Riveland, 98 F.3d 

447, 452 (9th Cir. 1996)). However, plaintiff’s allegation that defendant State of California 

deprived him of a “disability accommodation” in the form of a typewriter to prevent injury to his 

wrists is without merit. ECF No. 10 at 8. As noted in this court’s prior order dismissing 

plaintiff’s original complaint, there is no constitutional right to the use of a typewriter. ECF No. 

5 at 4-5 (citing Lindquist v. Idaho State Bd. Of Corr., 776 F.2d 851, 858 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

 Because the second amended complaint violates Rule 8 and fails to state a cognizable 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 8 of 11
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 

9

claim against the five clearly named defendants, it must be dismissed with leave to amend. 

Additionally, it appears from the second amended complaint’s remaining allegations that 

plaintiff has attempted to improperly join other defendants and claims that are unrelated to the 

allegations against the named defendants discussed above.3 Therefore plaintiff’s remaining 

claims must be dismissed. 

 To the extent plaintiff seeks to join defendants and claims that are unrelated to his 

allegations against the five clearly named defendants, plaintiff is informed of the following 

principles that may apply to this action. Plaintiff may join multiple claims if they are all against a 

single defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a). If plaintiff has more than one claim based upon separate 

transactions or occurrences, the claims must be set forth in separate paragraphs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

10(b). Unrelated claims against different defendants must be pursued in multiple lawsuits. 

The controlling principle appears in Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a): ‘A party 

asserting a claim . . . may join, [] as independent or as alternate 

claims, as many claims . . . as the party has against an opposing 

party.’ Thus multiple claims against a single party are fine, but 

Claim A against Defendant 1 should not be joined with unrelated 

Claim B against Defendant 2. Unrelated claims against different 

defendants belong in different suits, not only to prevent the sort of 

morass [a multiple claim, multiple defendant] suit produce[s], but 

also to ensure that prisoners pay the required filing fees-for the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act limits to 3 the number of frivolous 

suits or appeals that any prisoner may file without prepayment of 

the required fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2) (joinder of 

defendants not permitted unless both commonality and same transaction requirements are 

satisfied). 

 Here, the remaining allegations appear to be unrelated to plaintiff’s claims against the 

named defendants for improper processing of his grievances and the deprivation of a disability 

 

3

 The remaining claims in the body of plaintiff’s second amended complaint and the attached 

declarations involve individuals who are not named defendants in the caption or in the 

“defendants” section of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. It is difficult to ascertain which 

individuals, if any, plaintiff intended to include as defendants. To the extent plaintiff seeks to 

have the court refer to his first amended complaint for additional named defendants, the court 

declines to do so because an amended complaint supersedes any prior complaint, and each claim 

and defendant in an amended complaint must be sufficiently alleged. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 

55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967); Local Rule 220. 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 9 of 11
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 

10

accommodation. Instead, plaintiff alleges separate instances of attempted murder, interference 

with plaintiff’s mail, the withholding of ice for his wrists, the deactivation of a heater in his cell, 

and an unlawful search of his documents. Claims based on these allegations appear to be 

improperly joined because there are no facts demonstrating they arise out the same occurrence 

and involve a common question of law or fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Claims against 

improperly joined defendants must also be dismissed. 

 Plaintiff will be granted leave to file a third amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to 

file a third amended complaint, plaintiff must include a complete list of all intended defendants. 

Plaintiff must also identify as a defendant only persons who personally participated in a 

substantial way in depriving him of a federal constitutional right. Johnson, 588 F.2d at 743 (a 

person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in 

another’s act or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged 

deprivation). Plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a 

deprivation of plaintiff’s federal constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 

227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the third amended 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, 423 U.S. 362; May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson, 588 F.2d at 

743. Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 

violations are not sufficient. Ivey, 673 F.2d at 268. 

In addition, plaintiff is reminded that any amended complaint must be complete in itself 

without reference to any prior pleading. Loux, 375 F.2d at 57; Local Rule 220. Once plaintiff 

files a third amended complaint, his prior pleadings are superseded. 

Finally, plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by alleging new, unrelated claims 

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

IV. Request for Injunctive Relief 

 In his second amended complaint, plaintiff included a request for a “preliminary 

injunction, permanent injunction, and temporary restraining order.” ECF No. 10 at 16. As 

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 10 of 11
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 

11

discussed above, plaintiff’s second amended complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff’s request for 

injunctive relief is therefore premature because he has failed to state a claim upon which relief 

can be granted and there are no defendants against whom this court could enter an order. If 

plaintiff files an amended complaint that states a cognizable claim, the court will order the United 

States Marshal to serve the amended complaint upon the named defendant(s). The court cannot 

issue an order against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. See Zenith 

Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969); see also Zepeda v. United 

States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A federal court may issue an 

injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the 

claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons not before the court.”). Accordingly, 

the court will deny plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief as premature. 

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

 1. Plaintiff’s first and second amended complaints are dismissed; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is denied as premature; and 

 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must bear the 

docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; plaintiff 

must file an original and two copies of the third amended complaint; failure to file a third 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed. 

DATED: October 1, 2013 

brow3045.14amd.new

Case 2:12-cv-03045-MCE-AC Document 12 Filed 10/02/13 Page 11 of 11