Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mora v. Woodford

September 16, 2008

MICHAEL FREDERIC MORA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WOODFORD, ET AL., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (Doc. 13)

I. SCREENING ORDER

Michael Frederic Mora ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On June 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed his original complaint, which was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff subsequently filed his first amended complaint on December 1, 2006 -- which is presently before the Court for screening.

A. Screening Requirement

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

B. Summary of Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff is a state prisoner at California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California -- where the acts he complains of occurred. Plaintiff names "Woodford" as the only defendant in this action.

Plaintiff alleges that: on September 13, 2004, he was assigned as the porter in the Unit #2 gym; another inmate sustained a cut, and caused a pooling of blood in various locations; officers Dunne and Miller ordered Plaintiff to clean up the blood without protective clothing and/or gloves; Plaintiff accidentally placed his unprotected hand in a pool of the blood; officers Dunne and Miller sent Plaintiff to the medical clinic where MTA Griffin (who was still caring for the bleeding inmate, and had been notified that Plaintiff was on his way) sent Plaintiff back to his housing unit without exam and/or treatment; on September 17, 2004, Plaintiff felt ill and was seen by MTA Gage who had Plaintiff fill out a request form to see a doctor; Plaintiff was seen on September 21, 2004 by Infectious Control Disease RN, Joan Boatman who drew a blood sample and initiated a series of Hepatitis vaccines; the next day, Plaintiff's blood results were negative for HIV, and positive for Hepatitis C; on November 3, 2004, a subsequent blood draw came back negative for Hepatitis C; and Plaintiff filed inmate appeals regarding the incident and subsequent medical care which were variously denied, and granted.

Plaintiff does not state what, if any damages/relief, he seeks.

Plaintiff fails to state which of his constitutional rights he feels were violated. Rather, he presents his first amended complaint as a chronological rendition of events. The Court provides Plaintiff with the following law that might apply based on his factual allegations. However, it is Plaintiff's duty to specify his claims for relief and their factual basis. The Court will not guess as to which facts Plaintiff believes support his unspecified constitutional violations.

Further, it appears to the Court that, rather than stating his allegations in a full and complete amended complaint, Plaintiff merely states factual allegations, attempting to correct/perfect the defects in his claims as identified in this Court's prior screening order. The Court provides Plaintiff with the following law that appears to apply to his generalized claims. Plaintiff was previously advised, and is hereby reminded that Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. As a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. The Court hereby gives Plaintiff one final opportunity to cure the defects in his pleadings. If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must name all defendants he intends to pursue, clearly state the factual allegations upon which he asserts liability of each defendant, and delineate the damages/relief he seeks.

C. Pleading Requirements

1. Federal Rule of Civil ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.