referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
How later courts described this case
- referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TIMOTHY BLANKENSHIP, No. 2:20-CV-0110-DMC-P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint. See ECF No.
20 5.
21 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
22 against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
23 § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or
24 malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
25 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,
26 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain
27 statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This
28 means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied if the
2 complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon which it
3 rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege
4 with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support the
5 claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is
6 impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague
7 and conclusory.
8 In this case, plaintiff names only “John Doe” defendants. See ECF No.5, pgs. 2-3.
9 According to plaintiff, these unnamed individuals denied him medication in violation of his rights
10 under the Eighth Amendment. See id. at 3-5. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
11 plaintiff must allege an actual connection or link between the actions of the named defendants and
12 the alleged deprivations. See Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Rizzo v.
13 Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). “A person ‘subjects’ another to the deprivation of a constitutional
14 right, within the meaning of § 1983, if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's
15 affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes the
16 deprivation of which complaint is made.” Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
17 Vague and conclusory allegations concerning the involvement of official personnel in civil rights
18 violations are not sufficient. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).
19 Rather, the plaintiff must set forth specific facts as to each individual defendant’s causal role in
20 the alleged constitutional deprivation. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988).
21 Plaintiff’s naming of “John Doe” defendants does not establish a link between a
22 named individual and the alleged violation. Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file a
23 second amended complaint naming the actual individuals he alleges are responsible for denial of
24 medication.
25 Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by
26 amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire
27 action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is
28 informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See
1 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
2 | amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended
3 | complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if
4 | plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make
5 | plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be
6 | complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.
7 If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the
8 | conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs constitutional rights. See
9 | Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how
10 || each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
11 || between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d
12 | 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
13 Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the
14 | time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
15 |} 1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply
16 | with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
17 | See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19 1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
20 2. Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the date
21 | of service of this order.
22
23 | Dated: February 19, 2020 Sx<o_-
24 DENNIS M. COTA
25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26
27
28