Chambers v. McFadden-Jensen et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/22/2019 DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMBERT G. CHAMBERS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-0613 TLN CKD P v. ORDER R. MCFADDEN-JENSEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17 18 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has paid the filing fee. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 20 21 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 22 court has conducted the required screening and finds that plaintiff has improperly joined claims 23 and defendants. Under Rules 18 and 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff may 24 include in a pleading any claim he may have against a particular defendant. However, claims 25 against other defendants must arise from the same transaction, occurrence or series of transactions 26 or occurrences as a claim against the first defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with 27 this requirement. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed with leave to file an 28 ///// 1 1 amended complaint that does comply with rules regarding joinder in the Federal Rules of Civil 2 Procedure. 3 As to the contents of an amended complaint, plaintiff is informed that he must 4 demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff’s 5 constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, in his amended 6 complaint, plaintiff must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There 7 can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection 8 between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 9 (1976). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights 10 violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). For 11 example, in order to state a claim against a warden or former warden such as Warden Lizarraga, 12 the allegations must show that the warden was personally involved in a deprivation of rights. 13 Simply being a warden of a prison where a violation occurred is not enough for liability. 14 Finally, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 15 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 220 requires that an amended 16 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 17 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 18 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 19 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 20 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 21 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 22 1. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed. 23 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended 24 complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 25 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the 26 docket number assigned this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint.” Failure to file an 27 ///// 28 ///// 2 1 amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 2 be dismissed. 3 Dated: July 22, 2019 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 cham0613.14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?