James v. Price et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/27/2017 ORDERING Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with the terms of this order within 30 days. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNIE JAMES, 12 No. 2:17-cv-1433 MCE CKD P Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 J. PRICE, et al., 15 ORDER Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. Defendants removed this action to federal court from the Superior Court of Santa Clara 19 County on March 30, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a timely objection to removal. This proceeding 20 was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 21 22 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 23 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 24 “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 25 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff’s complaint states a 26 27 claim against defendant Austin upon which relief could be granted arising under the Eighth 28 ///// 1 1 Amendment for excessive force as detailed on page 8 of plaintiff’s complaint. In all other 2 respects, plaintiff’s complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. 3 At this point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may either proceed only on the claim 4 identified above; or 2) attempt to cure the deficiencies with respect to other claims in an amended 5 complaint. 6 If plaintiff chooses to amend, plaintiff is informed as follows: 7 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2), plaintiff may join in one action 8 as many claims as he has against one defendant. Other defendants can be joined to claims, but 9 claims which are only against other defendants generally must be brought in a separate action. 10 2. In order to state a claim for damages, plaintiff must allege facts indicating a causal 11 connection between the actions of a defendant and the injury sustained by plaintiff. See Barren v. 12 Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194-95 (9th Cir. 1998). There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant’s actions and the 14 claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory 15 allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of 16 Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 17 3. Section 1997(e)(a) of Title 42 of the United States Code provides that “[n]o action 18 shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, . . . until such 19 administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 20 4. Denial or delay of medical care for a prisoner’s serious medical needs may constitute a 21 violation of the prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 22 (1976). An individual is liable for such a violation only when injury occurs as a result of the 23 individual’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Id. A difference of opinion about 24 the proper course of treatment is not deliberate indifference, nor does a dispute between a 25 prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical treatment amount to a 26 constitutional violation. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 27 28 Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make an amended pleading complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in 2 1 itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a general rule, an amended 2 complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). 3 Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in 4 the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the 5 involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 6 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff is granted thirty 7 days to file an amended complaint that complies with the terms of this order. If plaintiff does not 8 file an amended complaint within 30 days, this action will proceed on plaintiff’s claim arising 9 under the Eighth Amendment against defendant Austin and the court will recommend that all 10 other defendants be dismissed. 11 Dated: November 27, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 jame1433.1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?