Thompson v. Lassen County Adult Detention Facility

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 2/24/2016 DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend; plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30 days.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

REX WILLIAM THOMPSON,

12
13

No. 2:15-CV-2357-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

14

DEAN GROWDEN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

/
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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

This means that claims must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See McHenry v. Renne,
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

the 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
9

Plaintiff claims that defendants are violating his rights under the Eighth
Amendment by providing only one hot meal per day. The Eighth Amendment requires that

10

prisoner receive food that is adequate to maintain health. See LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444

11

(9th Cir. 1993). Here, plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show an Eighth Amendment

12

violation because, while plaintiff alleges that he is only being provided one hot meal per day,

13

plaintiff has not alleged that this meal is inadequate to maintain his health.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

///

25

///

26

///
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

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

14

2.

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

15

service of this order.

16
17
18
19

DATED: February 24, 2016
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3