Williamson v. Cate et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; ORDER INSTRUCTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2013. Amended Complaint due by 5/15/2013. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 4/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2013)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 4/11/13*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)

JIM WILLIAMSON,

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND;

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER INSTRUCTING PLAINTIFF
TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON OR BEFORE MAY
15, 2013

15 MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

16

/

17

INTRODUCTION

18

This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

19
20

prisoner. Plaintiff filed an original and then a first amended complaint. The Court now

21

reviews the first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
DISCUSSION

22
23
24

A.

Standard of Review
A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner

25

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

26

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and

27

dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may

28
No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

1

be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id.

2

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica

3

Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim

4
5

to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)

6

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial

7

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

8

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting

9

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal conclusions

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from

11

the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 (9th Cir. 1994).

12

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

13

that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and

14

that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See

15

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

16

B.

17

(1)
(2)

Legal Claims
Plaintiff has submitted a lengthy and rambling complaint alleging many causes of

18

action, not all of which are related to each other. Essentially, he challenges the conditions of

19

his confinement in administrative segregation. It is not known from the face of the complaint

20

which issues were administratively exhausted. Only those specific claims that were properly

21

exhausted (and which relate to each other) through the prison’s official grievance process

22

will be allowed to proceed. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to file

23

an amended complaint on or before May 15, 2013. Not only must plaintiff list those

24

specific claims that were exhausted, he must reallege all facts relevant to those claims. Any

25

facts relating to unexhausted claims will likely be irrelevant. These realleged claims must

26

relate to specific incidents, and not be generalized and undetailed grievances. Simply

27

alleging that medical care is inadequate is conclusory and insufficiently detailed. Dates,

28
No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

2

1

times, places, names of specific defendants, details of the acts of those specific defendants,

2

and how those specific acts resulted in a constitutional violation are the sort of information

3

required. Long narrative background descriptions of matters not relevant to the precise

4

claims are not helpful.
Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file

6

an amended complaint on or before May 15, 2013. The amended complaint must address

7

all the deficiencies listed above, and include the caption and civil case number used in this

8

order (12-6237 RS (PR)) and the words SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

9

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the previous complaints, plaintiff

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

must include in his second amended complaint all the claims he wishes to present and all of

11

the defendants he wishes to sue. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.

12

1992). Any claims not raised in the second amended complaint will be deemed waived.

13

Plaintiff may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by reference. Failure to file

14

an amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in dismissal of this action

15

without further notice to plaintiff.

16

It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court

17

informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice of

18

Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion or ask for

19

an extension of time to do so. Failure to comply may result in the dismissal of this

20

action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 11, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

No. C 12-6237 RS (PR)
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

3