The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MIGUEL BELMONTE, No. 2:19-cv-00163-CKD-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 S. PALOMARES, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this federal civil
18 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by
19 Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
20 I. Screening Standard
21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a
22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The
23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally
24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek
25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
26 A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
27 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th
28 Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an
1 indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
2 490 U.S. at 327. The critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however inartfully
3 pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th
4 Cir. 1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
5 In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must contain more than
6 “naked assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
7 of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007). In other words,
8 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
9 statements do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Furthermore, a claim
10 upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A
11 claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
12 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
13 at 678. When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted,
14 the court must accept the allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007), and
15 construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416
16 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
17 II. Factual and Procedural History
18 The court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to
19 amend on March 21, 2019 because the challenges to his disciplinary conviction were barred by
20 Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 11. In this same order, plaintiff was
21 cautioned that an amended complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any
22 additional pleading. ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Local Rule 220).
23 Following an extension of time, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 11,
24 2019. ECF No. 17. Since that date, plaintiff has filed seven additional pleadings which he
25 captions as “Supplement[s]” to his second amended complaint. ECF Nos. 20-23, 25-27.
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
1 III. Analysis
2 The court is unable to screen plaintiff’s second amended complaint due to the number of
3 subsequent filings by plaintiff in which he seeks to add claims or otherwise amend his pending
4 complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff’s second amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff
5 will be granted one last opportunity to file a single amended complaint that lists all claims and
6 defendants which plaintiff wishes to pursue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff is further
7 advised against supplementing any third amended complaint with additional “notices” or
8 “supplements” unless he files a formal motion asking to do so, and the court grants his motion.
9 See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(d). The court will strike any “supplements” filed in violation of this court
10 order.
11 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions
12 complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See Ellis v.
13 Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in
14 specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C.
15 § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the
16 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory
17 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of
18 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
19 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
20 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
21 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a
22 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
23 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no
24 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
25 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
26 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
27 1. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (ECF No. 17) is dismissed.
28 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended
1 | complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil
2 | Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket
3 | number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an
4 | amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action
5 | be dismissed.
6 | Dated: January 13, 2020 bh rdf ht / {a—
7 CAROLYN K. DELANEY :
g UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 12/belm0163.2ndamended.docx
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28