Jackson v. C.D.C.R. et al
Filing
74
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Motions terminated as moot or for lack of merit: 65 MOTION for Administrative Relief filed by Charlie Jackson, 57 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Charlie Jackson, 64 MOTION to Compel filed b y Charlie Jackson, 67 MOTION for Leave to File filed by Charlie Jackson, 70 MOTION to Produce filed by Charlie Jackson. Amended Complaint due by 2/3/2013. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/3/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS )
)
& REHABILIATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
CHARLIE D. JACKSON, F03949,
11
12
13
14
15
No. C 12-2516 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
(Docket #57, 64, 65, 67 & 70)
16
17
On May 16, 2012, while plaintiff was a prisoner at San Quentin State
18
Prison (SQSP), he filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
19
continued harassment from correctional officers since he filed an administrative
20
appeal against a correctional officer that resulted in the correctional officer being
21
fired. Among other things, plaintiff alleged that correctional officers routinely
22
contaminate his meals with toxic substances, tamper with his mail, and verbally
23
abuse him and call him a "rat" and a "snitch."
24
Per order filed on July 30, 2012, the court found that, liberally construed,
25
plaintiff's allegations of continued and pervasive serious harassment from
26
correctional officers at SQSP appear to state a cognizable claim for injunctive
27
relief under § 1983 and ordered the claim served on SQSP Warden Kevin P.
28
Chappell. Defendant was ordered to file a dispositive motion within 90 days.
1
On September 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a voluminous First Amended
2
Complaint (FAC) alleging numerous violations of his First Amendment right to
3
freedom of speech and Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual
4
punishment against sixty-four defendants. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive
5
and monetary relief.
6
Per order filed on October 9, 2012, the court stayed discovery until the
7
FAC is screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. But plaintiff recently informed the
8
court that he has been released from prison and wishes to withdraw his request
9
for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff's release from prison indeed renders moot
10
his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Alvarez v. Hill, 667 F.3d
11
1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2012); Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (9th Cir.
12
1995). Plaintiff may only proceed with claims for monetary relief against
13
individual defendants, which requires that he allege specific facts showing how
14
each named defendant actually and proximately caused the deprivation of his
15
federally protected rights of which he complains. See Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d
16
628, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1988).
17
Good cause appearing therefor, the FAC is DISMISSED with leave to
18
amend, as indicated above, within 30 days of this order. The pleading must be
19
simple and concise and must include the caption and civil case number used in
20
this order and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page.
21
Failure to file a proper amended complaint within the designated time will result
22
in the dismissal of this action.
23
Plaintiff is advised that the amended complaint will supersede the original
24
complaint and all other pleadings. Claims and defendants not included in the
25
amended complaint will not be considered by the court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814
26
F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987).
27
28
2
1
Plaintiff's various pending miscellaneous motions (docket #57, 64, 65, 67
2
& 70) are dismissed as moot and/or for lack of merit.
3
SO ORDERED.
4
DATED: January 3, 2013
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.12\Jackson, C.12-2516.dwlta.wpd
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?