Johnson v. Mill Creek State Prison et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 9/28/15 ORDERING that Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of service of this order.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH D. JOHNSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-CV-0365-CMK-P

vs.

ORDER

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON,
et al.,

15
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

21

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

23

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

24

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover,

25

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that complaints contain a “. . . short and plain

26

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
1

1

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,

2

84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (referring to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are satisfied

3

if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds upon

4

which it rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must

5

allege with at least some degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants which support

6

the claims, vague and conclusory allegations fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is

7

impossible for the court to conduct the screening required by law when the allegations are vague

8

and conclusory.

9

In this case, plaintiff names “Mill Creek” and “Doctor Jackson.” Plaintiff’s

10

hand-written and largely indecipherable complaint appears to allege some kind of conspiracy

11

with respect to plaintiff’s medical diagnosis. While plaintiff mentions “malpractice,” the court

12

does not find any allegations as to Dr. Jackson.

13

Because it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order may be cured by

14

amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire

15

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is

16

informed that, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See

17

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to

18

amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are not alleged in the amended

19

complaint are waived. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore, if

20

plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to the prior pleading in order to make

21

plaintiff's amended complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended complaint must be

22

complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. See id.

23

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the

24

conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights. See

25

Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The complaint must allege in specific terms how

26

each named defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative link or connection
2

1

between each defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d

2

164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

3

Finally, plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint within the

4

time provided in this order may be grounds for dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at

5

1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also warned that a complaint which fails to comply

6

with Rule 8 may, in the court’s discretion, be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

7

See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and

10

2.

Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days of the date of

11

service of this order.

12
13
14
15

DATED: September 28, 2015
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3