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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0623 MCE DAD P

vs.

J. STOCKER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint.

As was the case with plaintiff’s original complaint, the amended complaint is

defective. It appears that plaintiff is claiming that he was misdiagnosed as having degenerative

disc disease. However, he attaches medical records which actually confirm this diagnosis. In

this regard, a radiologist report, dated May 11, 2001, concludes that there is “[e]vidence for

degenerative disc disease at L5-S1.” (Compl., Ex. 19.) On November 19, 2002, a MRI was

taken and the radiology report also confirms, “Degenerative disc disease noted at the L5-S1 level,

otherwise unremarkable.” (Id., Ex. 1.) Based on responses to his administrative appeals,

plaintiff has been treated with pain medication, received physical therapy, and was provided

exercise and stretching instructions. (Id., Ex. 10.) It is not clear what treatment plaintiff seeks

Case 2:04-cv-00623-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 04/28/05 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

2

and whether there is any evidence confirming that the treatment he seeks is required. On October

29, 2003, a follow-up appointment was conducted by Dr. Morteza Farr at Hospital of Manteca. 

(Id., Ex. 11.) Dr. Farr noted that lumbar epidural injections might be beneficial but Dr. Farr

indicated that he wanted to see plaintiff again after he had the opportunity to review the MRI that

was done on November 19, 2002. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that he did not receive the injections,

but fails to provide further details with respect to this aspect of his medical treatment. It is not

clear whether Dr. Farr continued to recommend lumbar epidural injections after the MRI was

reviewed or whether other treatment was recommended and provided by the named defendants.

Plaintiff will be given a final opportunity to amend his complaint so as to state a

cognizable claim. Plaintiff is advised to refer to the court’s August 24, 2004 order which

provides the legal standards for a medical care claim. Plaintiff is reminded that he must provide

allegations that demonstrate that each named defendant was deliberately indifferent about

plaintiff’s medical condition. Negligence or a difference of opinion between plaintiff and the

defendants about the proper treatment for his condition fails to establish an Eighth Amendment

violation. 

On September 20, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion to include Jennie Wofford as a

named defendant. Plaintiff may include this defendant in his second amended complaint. 

However, plaintiff 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

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

1982).

Lastly, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order

to make plaintiff's second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that his

Case 2:04-cv-00623-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 04/28/05 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

3

second 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 his second amended complaint, the

prior pleadings no longer serve any function in the case. Therefore, in his second amended

complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 

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

1. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. 

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

second 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 second amended complaint

must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended

Complaint”; plaintiff must use the form complaint provided by the Clerk of the Court; plaintiff

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

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

be dismissed.

3. Plaintiff’s September 20, 2004 motion to name a defendant is denied as moot.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with a copy of the court’s 

§ 1983 form complaint. 

DATED: April 28, 2005.

DAD:4

brow623.amd

Case 2:04-cv-00623-MCE -DAD Document 8 Filed 04/28/05 Page 3 of 3