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.

Gary Raymond Xavier v. S.M. Roche

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


August 3, 2011

GARY RAYMOND XAVIER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
S.M. ROCHE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Carolyn K. Delaney United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding with counsel with an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2011.

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).

In his second amended complaint, plaintiff alleges he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment by virtue of inadequate medical care.

Plaintiff seeks damages and names the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as the only defendant. However, CDCR is entitled to immunity from claims for damages under the Eleventh Amendment. Brown v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections, 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, plaintiff's second amended complaint must be dismissed. The court will grant plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint in which plaintiff names an appropriate defendant.

Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's third amended complaint complete. Local Rule 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 a third amended complaint, the original pleading no longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in a third amended complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's second amended complaint is dismissed; and

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third amended complaint that complies with the requirements of this order, the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the third amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned this case and must be labeled "Third Amended Complaint"; failure to file a third amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

1 xavi0783.14

20110803

© 1992-2011 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.