Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Lau v. Adams

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 26, 2009

HON LAU, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DERRAL ADAMS, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER

On April 8, 2009, an order was entered, granting Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff failed to do so, and on June 19, 2009, an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. On June 30, 3009, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause.

In his response, Plaintiff sets forth complaints regarding the conditions of his confinement, and attaches copies of inmate grievances. Plaintiff is advised that any additional allegations regarding his complaint should be set forth in an amended complaint. The Court will grant Plaintiff thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, the Court will screen the original complaint.

If plaintiff chooses to amend the complaint, plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or connection between a defendant's actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).

In addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, 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. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The June 19, 2009, order to show cause is discharged.

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order in which to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090826

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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