Parnell v. Martinez et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/27/17 ordering plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second amended complaint. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:16-cv-1556 MCE CKD P
A. MARTINEZ, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. On November 23, 2016, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(a). The court found plaintiff’s original complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. The original complaint was dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint
and with guidance and instructions as to the contents of the amended complaint. Plaintiff has
now filed an amended complaint. The court has reviewed the amended complaint and finds that it
also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for essentially the same reasons as the
Good cause appearing, plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to cure the defects in
his pleadings. Plaintiff should review the court’s November 23, 2016 order, and the legal
principles identified therein, in determining whether he should file a second amended complaint.
If he elects to do so, he must adhere to all instructions given in the order. Plaintiff is further
advised as follows:
1. In order to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation, plaintiff must allege facts
showing a causal connection between protected conduct and adverse action. See Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012).
2. The Eighth Amendment provides protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
With respect to conditions of confinement, only “extreme deprivations” amount to cruel and
unusual punishment, not “routine discomfort.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1992).
3. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint cannot exceed 20 pages.
Once again, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to
make plaintiff’s second amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended
complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a
general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375
F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no
longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed.
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a second
amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The second amended
complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Second Amended
Complaint.” Failure to file a second amended complaint in accordance with this order will result
in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
Dated: July 27, 2017
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?