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)

Download PDF
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?