# (PC) Williams v. Prudhel > District Court, E.D. California · November 27, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10057295 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** November 27, 2023 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10057295 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-2250 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOSHUA PRUDHEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 19 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 20 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 21 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 23 On March 6, 2023, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed the complaint 24 with leave to amend. Having conducted the required screening with respect to plaintiff’s 25 amended complaint, the court finds that plaintiff may proceed on the following claims: 26 1. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected conduct 27 against defendants Vertelli, Groves and Herr as alleged in paragraphs 5-13 in the amended 28 complaint. 1 2. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected conduct 2 against defendants Vertelli, Rios, Benson, Simmons and Groves as alleged in paragraphs 23-43 of 3 the amended complaint, and a claim for exposure to harmful conditions of confinement in 4 violation of the Eighth Amendment against the same defendants relating to plaintiff’s fall down 5 stairs alleged in paragraph 43. 6 At this point, plaintiff has two options: proceed on the claims identified above or file a 7 second amended complaint in an attempt to cure the deficiencies with respect to the other claims 8 and defendants identified in the amended complaint. 9 If plaintiff chooses to proceed on the claims described above, the court will construe this 10 as a request to voluntarily dismiss the additional claims and defendants pursuant to Rule 11 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12 To assist plaintiff in making his decision the court informs plaintiff that his amended 13 complaint is generally vague and confusing. For the most part, plaintiff fails to identify the 14 specific actions of a defendant that caused actual injury. For instance, plaintiff is vague as to 15 which actions were taken by which defendants. Further, plaintiff frequently refers to defendants 16 collectively rather than indicating specifically who did what and how that caused injury. Each 17 defendant has a right to be put on notice as to exactly what plaintiff alleges he/she did. There can 18 be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 19 between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 20 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 21 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 22 With respect to plaintiff’s claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 23 plaintiff is referred to the court’s March 6, 2023 screening order for a discussion of what plaintiff 24 must demonstrate to state a claim. 25 In addition, plaintiff is informed that under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure, plaintiff cannot bring unrelated claims against different defendants. Simply put, 27 plaintiff cannot join claims against defendant B that have nothing to do with those brought against 28 defendant A. For example, plaintiff’s claims arising from events occurring at California State 1 | Prison, Los Angeles County cannot be joined with the claims identified above which arose at 2 | California State Prison, Sacramento. 3 Finally, plaintiff is informed that any second amended complaint cannot exceed 25 pages 4 | and that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiffs second amended 5 || complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself 6 || without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended complaint 7 || supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 8 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff has the option to proceed immediately on the claims described herein. In the 10 | alternative, plaintiff may choose to file a second amended complaint to fix the deficiencies 11 | identified in this order with respect to the remaining claims and defendants. 12 2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and return the 13 || attached Notice of Election form notifying the court whether he wants to proceed on the screened 14 || amended complaint or whether he wants time to file a second amended complaint. 15 3. If plaintiff fails to return the attached Notice of Election within the time provided, the 16 || court will construe this failure as consent to dismiss the deficient claims and proceed only on the 17 || cognizable claims identified above. 18 || Dated: November 27, 2023 / a8 } Ht | / 3 p Sak 19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 | 1 will2250.option 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 BOBBY JAMES WILLIAMS, No. 2:22-cv-2250 CKD P 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. NOTICE OF ELECTION 11 JOSHUA PRUDHEL, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Check only one option: 15 _____ 1. Plaintiff wishes to proceed on the following claims: 16 A. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected 17 conduct against defendants Vertelli, Groves and Herr as alleged in paragraphs 5-13 in the 18 amended complaint. 19 B. Claims arising under the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected 20 conduct against defendants Vertelli, Rios, Benson, Simmons and Groves as alleged in 21 paragraphs 23-43 of the amended complaint, and a claim for exposure to harmful 22 conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against the same 23 defendants relating to plaintiff’s fall down the stairs alleged in paragraph 43. 24 _____ 2. Plaintiff wants time to file a second amended complaint. 25 DATED: 26 ____________________ 27 Plaintiff 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10057295. Public record. Not legal advice.