Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20090521_0007971.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 13:41:37
Document Index: 726296619

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1983']

DARONTA LEWIS, PLAINTIFF,v.CHARLES ANTONEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff is a state prison inmate proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff has been without funds for six months and is currently without funds. Accordingly, the court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Plaintiff is obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments shall be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Before his in forma pauperis paperwork was complete, plaintiff submitted a document he calls an amended complaint, which appears to allege a denial of medical treatment for problems with his wrist and the use of medication, which produced an allergic reaction. The original complaint appeared to allege a different Eighth Amendment violation, based on the use of excessive force, and perhaps a First Amendment retaliation claim. In the original complaint, plaintiff also appears to raise claims on the behalf of other inmates. Both documents are extremely difficult to follow, for they consist of "'narrative rambling[]'" yet a marked lack of "notice of what legal claims are asserted against which defendants." McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the court cannot categorize the allegations in the two documents in any logical fashion so as to enable it to screen the complaint as required under federal law.
For these reasons, the court finds the allegations in plaintiff's 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 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. Community 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 complaint must be dismissed. The court will, however, grant leave to file an amended complaint.
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 (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). Moreover, plaintiff cannot assert the rights of other inmates. AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dept. of Human Services, 567 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1259 (D.Haw. 2008).
In McHenry, the court quoted the standard form negligence complaint from the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a model of concise pleading:
Id. Should plaintiff chose to amend his complaint, he is referred to this as well.
In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 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, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
3. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. 4. 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 and limited to fifteen pages; the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled " Second Amended Complaint"; 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.