Madsen v. United States of America et al
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 9 MOTION for service of summons and complaint and TO SHOW CAUSE or File Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's response to OSC or Amended Complaint due by 6/2/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form (blank))(CMG)(cc mailed to Plaintiff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Kurt R Madsen,
CASE NO. C17-5218 RBL-DWC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
United States of America et al,
Plaintiff Kurt R. Madsen, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights
17 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court declines to
18 serve the Complaint but provides Plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by June 2, 2017, to
19 cure the deficiencies identified herein. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of
20 Summons and Complaint (Dkt. 9).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 1
Plaintiff is currently housed at the Western State Hospital and alleges his constitutional
3 rights have been violated during his involuntary commitment.1 Dkt. 1, 7, 9.
On May 26, 2013, Plaintiff alleges he was released from his sentence which he was
5 wrongfully convicted. Id. at 7. On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff alleges he was arrested on a warrant by
6 the United States Marshals, which was a false claim Plaintiff had escaped from community
7 custody. Id. at 7. Based on the proposed motion for injunction filed with Plaintiff’s Complaint
8 (Dkt. 1-3), it appears Plaintiff was charged with three counts of escape from community custody
9 and then involuntarily committed to Western State Hospital as a pretrial detainee, awaiting trial.
10 Dkt. 1-3 (King County Superior Court Order on Motion for Involuntary Medications).
Plaintiff alleges he was ordered to take an unknown medication by non-party Dr.
12 Morrison. Dkt. 7 at 6. Plaintiff alleges Dr. Morrison is falsely claiming Plaintiff needs
13 hospitalization. Id. at 7. On March 5, 2017, Plaintiff alleges he was strapped down to a bed and
14 injected by an unknown substance for eight hours. Id. at 7. Since March 5, 2017, Plaintiff alleges
15 he has had to take five milligrams of “Olanzapine.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges he is being involuntarily medicated with “mind altering drugs” in
17 amounts which exceed Federal Drug Administration approval. Dkt. 7 at 3. Plaintiff alleges that
18 he was denied access to the website uscode.house.gov and access to a competent computer. Dkt.
19 7 at 1. Plaintiff alleges he defended himself from attack with his bare hands. Id. at 5-8.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Dkt. 7 at 8.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on his behalf, and on behalf of “other similarly situated citizens of the
United States of America.” Dkt. 7. While pro se plaintiffs may appear on their own behalf, they may not represent
other individuals. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding that “a litigant appearing in
propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). Thus, Plaintiff may not proceed in this
action on behalf of any other citizens.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 2
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen
3 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
4 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).2 The Court must “dismiss the
5 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
6 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant
7 who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington,
8 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998).
In order to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he
10 suffered a violation of rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2)
11 the violation was proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton
12 v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to
13 identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271
14 (1994). To satisfy the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually
15 named defendants caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the
16 complaint. See Arnold v. IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).
Where, as here, exhibits are attached to a complaint, the exhibits are deemed part of the
18 complaint for all purposes, including for purposes of determining the sufficiency of the plaintiff's
19 claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c); 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d §
20 1327, at 443-44 (2002). Moreover, if an exhibit attached to a complaint contradicts an assertion
21 in the complaint and reveals information that prohibits recovery as a matter of law, the
22 information provided in the exhibit supersedes the allegation in the complaint. Wilson v. Fitter,
The Court notes although Plaintiff is currently housed at Western State Hospital, he is currently
24 committed as a pre-trial detainee, thus, § 1915 applies in this case.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 3
1 2009 WL 6908049, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2009) report and recommendation adopted, 2010
2 WL 3893992 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2010) (citing Riggins v. Walter, 279 F.3d 422, 425-26 (7th Cir.
3 1995) (affirming dismissal of prisoner's § 1983 claims where information in attached exhibit
4 contradicted allegation of complaint); Hudson v. Phillipson, 2008 WL 356884, *3 (W.D.Mich.
5 Feb.7, 2008) (dismissing prisoner's § 1983 claims where information in attached exhibits
6 conflicted with allegations of complaint)).
1. Improper Defendant
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, it does not appear he has named a viable
9 defendant. Certain persons and entities are not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
10 includes Defendant State of Washington. States are not persons for purposes of § 1983. See
11 Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 69 (1997); Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State
12 Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat’l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 839 (9th
13 Cir. 1997); Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc); Gilbreath v. Cutter
14 Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1327 (9th Cir. 1991). See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 641
15 (9th Cir. 1989), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
16 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Therefore, any claims against the State of Washington are
17 subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) unless Plaintiff can show cause why
18 they should not be dismissed.
In addition, Plaintiff names the United States of America as a Defendant. Dkt. 7. The
20 basis for Plaintiff’s allegations against the United States are unclear. However, Bivens actions do
21 not lie against the United States, agencies of the United States, or federal agents in their official
22 capacity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
23 of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). And while the Federal Tort Claim Act
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 4
1 allows federal inmates to sue the United States for injuries sustained while incarcerated, see 28
2 U.S.C. § 2674, Plaintiff is currently housed at Western State Hospital, a facility run by the State
3 of Washington, and he alleges no facts supporting a claim against the United States in this
4 context. Therefore, any claims against the United States are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28
5 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) unless Plaintiff can show cause why they should not be dismissed.
Assuming Plaintiff wishes to pursue this lawsuit against particular individuals, he must
7 allege facts showing how the particular individual or individuals caused or personally
8 participated in causing a deprivation of a particular protected constitutional right. In other words,
9 he must state what occurred, when it occurred, who was involved, and how he was harmed.
2. Involuntary Commitment and Medication
To the extent Plaintiff is alleging the administration of involuntary medication violates
12 his rights under the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege facts sufficient to indicate a
13 culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297–99
14 (1991). Accordingly, neither a difference of opinion about the proper course of treatment nor a
15 dispute between a prisoner and prison officials over the necessity for or extent of medical
16 treatment amounts to deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058
17 (9th Cir. 2004); Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, Plaintiff has not
18 alleged a single fact to demonstrate any individual acted with the requisite “culpable state of
19 mind,” nor has he provided sufficient facts regarding the inadequacy of his treatment. Instead,
20 Plaintiff alleges that the treatment was involuntary rather than inadequate. Therefore, Plaintiff's
21 claim is more appropriately analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In
22 addition, to the extent Plaintiff is attempts to obtain a writ in this Court to compel the state court
23 to take or refrain from some action, his claim is frivolous as a matter of law. This Court lacks
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 5
1 jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. Demos v. United States Dist. Court for
2 E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991); See 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
With respect to Plaintiff’s claims of involuntary commitment and medication, the
4 Supreme Court has recognized inmates possess “a significant liberty interest in avoiding the
5 unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
6 Amendment.” Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222 (1990). Substantive due process is
7 satisfied and a state may treat an inmate who has a serious mental illness with involuntary
8 psychotropic medication if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in
9 the inmate's medical interest. Id. at 227. In the context of involuntary medication, procedural due
10 process is satisfied if the inmate is provided with notice, the right to be present at an adversarial
11 hearing, and the right to present and cross-examine witnesses. Id. at 235. Appointment of counsel
12 is not required because a lay advisor who understands the psychiatric issues involved sufficiently
13 protects an inmate's due process rights. Id. at 236.
Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts showing he is not mentally ill, medication is not in his best
15 interests or he was not a danger to others or himself. In addition, the documents attached to
16 Plaintiff’s Complaint show on February 24, 2017,3 the King County Superior Court entered an
17 Order on Motion for Involuntary Medications. Dkt. 1-3. Based on the report of Western State
18 Hospital, the testimony of Dr. Morrison, and arguments of counsel, involuntary medication
19 would significantly further the state interest of the need to bring Plaintiff to trial for three counts
20 of escape from community custody. See id. Based on the testimony for Dr. Morrison, the State
21 Court found administration of involuntary Zyprexa and/or Risperdal was medically appropriate
22 and in Plaintiff’s best interest. Id.
The Court notes the state court Order is actually dated February 26, 2016, however, the Order states
24 Plaintiff was examined on January 31, 2017, thus it appears the 2016 date is a typographical error in the form order.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 6
If Plaintiff wishes to proceed on this claim, he must show he is not dangerous to himself
2 or others and the treatment is not in his best interest. In addition, Plaintiff must allege facts, if
3 any, showing how procedural due process was not satisfied in the State Court proceeding, as the
4 documents attached to his Complaint show he was afforded with notice and a hearing.
Plaintiff alleges he defended himself from attack with his bare hands. Dkt. 7 at 5-8.
7 “Prison officials have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from physical abuse.”
8 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1250 (9th Cir. 1982); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
9 825, 833 (1994); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005); Robinson v. Prunty,
10 249 F.3d 862, 866 (9th Cir. 2001). To establish a violation of this duty, the prisoner must
11 establish that prison officials were “deliberately indifferen[t]” to serious threats to the inmate’s
12 safety. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
To demonstrate that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to a serious threat to the
14 inmate’s safety, the prisoner must show that “the official [knew] of and disregard[ed] an
15 excessive risk to inmate . . . safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the
16 inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [the official] must
17 also draw the inference.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837; see also Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d
18 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010); Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175, 1187-88 (9th Cir.
19 2002); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 913 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Anderson v. County of
20 Kern, 45 F.3d 1310, 1313 (9th Cir. 1995). To prove knowledge of the risk, however, the prisoner
21 may rely on circumstantial evidence; in fact, the very obviousness of the risk may be sufficient to
22 establish knowledge. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842; Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th
23 Cir. 1995).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 7
Here, Plaintiff fails to identify who harmed him and how Defendants failed to protect him
2 from this harm. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue this claim, he must provide an amended complaint
3 with a short, plain statement explaining exactly how he was harmed and how each Defendant’s
4 actions constituted deliberate indifference.
4. Access to Courts
Plaintiff alleges he was denied access to a computer and to a website containing United
7 States statutes. Dkt. 7. Inmates have a “fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts.”
8 Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977). In Bounds, the Supreme Court held the right of
9 access imposes an affirmative duty on prison officials to assist inmates in preparing and filing
10 legal papers, either by establishing an adequate law library or by providing adequate assistance
11 from persons trained in the law. Id. at 828. In Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996), the Supreme
12 Court held a prisoner must show some actual injury resulting from a denial of access in order to
13 allege a constitutional violation. Id. at 349.
To establish he suffered an actual injury, plaintiff must show “actual prejudice with
15 respect to contemplated or existing litigation, such as the inability to meet a filing deadline or to
16 present a claim.” Lewis, 518 U.S. at 348; Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415, (2002);
17 Nevada Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2011); Phillips v. Hurst, 588
18 F.3d 652, 655 (9th Cir. 2009). The right of access to the courts is limited to non-frivolous direct
19 criminal appeals, habeas corpus proceedings, and Section 1983 cases. See Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353
20 n. 3, 354-55. “Failure to show that a ‘nonfrivolous legal claim has been frustrated’ is fatal to [an
21 access to courts] claim.” Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1155 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting
22 Lewis, 518 U.S. at 353 & n. 4).
Plaintiff fails to identify who denied him access to a computer and how this access has
24 caused him harm. Dkt. 7 at 1-2. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue an access to courts claim, he must
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 8
1 provide an amended complaint with a short, plain statement explaining exactly how he was
2 denied access to the courts and how each Defendant’s actions violated Plaintiff’s constitutional
5. Fourth and Sixth Amendments
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment when they entered arrest
6 warrants. Dkt. 7 at 2, 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the Sixth Amendment when he was
7 not provided with effective assistance of counsel. Dkt. 7 at 6.
A plaintiff may only recover damages under § 1983 for harm caused by actions whose
9 unlawfulness would render the imprisonment invalid, if he can prove the conviction or other
10 basis for confinement has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared
11 invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a
12 federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S 477, 486-87
13 (1994). A “§ 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation) –no matter the relief sought
14 (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of his suit (state conduct leading to the
15 conviction or internal prison proceedings) –if success in that action would necessarily
16 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 8117 82 (2005) (emphasis in original).
As Plaintiff’s allegations amount to an attack on the constitutional validity of an
19 underlying conviction, it may not be maintained pursuant to §1983 unless he can show the
20 conviction has been invalidated. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850,
21 855-56 (9th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff does not allege his conviction has been reversed on direct
22 appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
23 determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
24 Therefore, Plaintiff must also show cause why the Complaint should not be dismissed as Heck
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 9
1 barred. Therefore, these claims are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
2 unless Plaintiff can show cause why they should not be dismissed.
6. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; 18 U.S.C. § 1859
Plaintiff alleges Defendants refused to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 1859 and 18 U.S.C. § 241-
5 242. Titles 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 1859 are criminal or jurisdictional statutes that provide no
6 private right of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). Only a federal
7 grand jury or United States attorney may initiate such criminal charges. See Williams v.
8 Washington, 2008 WL 65417, at *1 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 4, 2008). Section 1983 can be used as a
9 mechanism for enforcing the rights guaranteed by a particular federal statute only if (1) the
10 statute creates enforceable rights and (2) Congress has not foreclosed the possibility of a § 1983
11 remedy for violations of the statute in question. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340–41
12 (1997); Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1027–28 (9th Cir.1999). Plaintiff fails to allege
13 facts to show that either of these two requirements is met. Therefore, these claims are subject to
14 dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) unless Plaintiff can show cause why they
15 should not be dismissed.
7. Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the United States Constitution
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have failed to enforce Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the United
18 States Constitution. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of this allegation and fails to
19 demonstrate he has a private civil cause of action based on Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the United
20 States Constitution. Therefore, these claims are subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
21 1915(e)(2)(B) unless Plaintiff can show cause why they should not be dismissed.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 10
8. Additional Claims
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have allowed an alliance with the International Brotherhood
3 of Teamsters Local 117 to overthrow the legal subdivision of King County. Dkt. 7 at 5, 6, 8.
4 Plaintiff also alleges his rights under the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments4 have been violated.
5 Dkt. 7. However, Plaintiff alleges no facts in support of these allegations.
Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the complaint [must
7 provide] ‘the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the ground upon which it
8 rests.’” Kimes v. Stone 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). In order to state
9 a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered a violation of
10 rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, and (2) the violation was
11 proximately caused by a person acting under color of state law. See Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d
12 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). The first step in a § 1983 claim is therefore to identify the specific
13 constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). To satisfy
14 the second prong, a plaintiff must allege facts showing how individually named defendants
15 caused, or personally participated in causing, the harm alleged in the complaint. See Arnold v.
16 IBM, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff must include more than “naked
18 assertions,” “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
To the extent Plaintiff is alleging his rights under the Thirteenth Amendment have been violated because
he has been forced to work at a prison facility at some point in the past, the Thirteenth Amendment does not apply
where prisoners are required to work in accordance with prison rules. Draper v. Rhay, 315 F.2d 193, 197 (9th Cir.),
cert. denied, 375 U.S. 915 (1963); see also Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.1999) ( “The Thirteenth
Amendment, which forbids involuntary servitude, has an express exception for persons imprisoned pursuant to
conviction for crime.”). Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment contemplates involuntary servitude by prisoners even
where the prisoner is not sentenced to hard labor. See Ali v. Johnson, 259 F.3d 317, 318 (5th Cir.2001); Murray v.
Miss. Dep't of Corr., 911 F.2d 1167, 1167-68 (5th Cir.1990); Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 619, 620-21 (5th
Cir.1988); see also Stiltner v. Rhay, 322 F.2d 314, 315 (9th Cir.1963) ( “There is no federally protected right of a
state prisoner not to work while imprisoned after conviction, even though that conviction is being appealed.”).
Therefore, this claim is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 11
1 action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.Ed.
2 929 (2007). A claim upon which the court can grant relief has facial plausibility; in other words,
3 a claim has “facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
4 draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 129
5 S.Ct. at 1949.
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any facts to support these claims. He does not state
7 when, where, or who was involved in any actions, or how his constitutional rights were harmed.
8 Plaintiff has failed to identify a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws
9 of the United States which has been violated or a person acting under color of state law who
10 allegedly violated his constitutional rights. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue these claim, he must
11 provide an amended complaint with a short, plain statement providing specific facts showing
12 how Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
9. Instruction to Plaintiff and the Clerk
If Plaintiff intends to pursue a § 1983 civil rights action in this Court, he must file an
15 amended complaint and within the amended complaint, he must write a short, plain statement
16 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the
17 person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the
18 action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional
19 rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See
20 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976).
Plaintiff shall present the amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The
22 amended complaint must be legibly rewritten or retyped in its entirety, it should be an original
23 and not a copy, it should contain the same case number, and it may not incorporate any part of
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 12
1 the original complaint by reference. The amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for
2 the original Complaint, and not as a supplement. The Court will screen the amended complaint to
3 determine whether it contains factual allegations linking each defendant to the alleged violations
4 of Plaintiff’s rights. The Court will not authorize service of the amended complaint on any
5 defendant who is not specifically linked to a violation of Plaintiff’s rights.
If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint or fails to adequately address the issues
7 raised herein on or before June 2, 2017, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this action.
Dated this 2nd day of May, 2017.
David W. Christel
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - 13
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?