United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This
proceeding was referred to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302.
civil rights action initiated in the San Joaquin Superior
Court was removed to this court on October 4, 2016. This
court screened the five page complaint on December 7, 2016
and dismissed it with leave to amend for failing to state a
claim. Following three extensions of time plaintiff filed a
511 page amended complaint including exhibits. The amended
complaint names forty-five defendants and contains a table of
contents that is over twenty pages long. In this voluminous
pleading, plaintiff asserts that “he speaks for the
entire Spanish speaking CDCR prison community….”
ECF No. 13 at 46. ////
pending before the court is defendants' motion for
screening of plaintiff's complaint which was filed a mere
two days after the amended complaint. ECF No. 14.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint
contain “ ‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, '
in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (internal citation omitted). To comply with Rule 8, a
plaintiff should set forth “who is being sued, for what
relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide
discovery.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1177 (9th Cir. 1996). Conclusory allegations are
insufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (stating that Rule 8 “demands more than an
accusation”; a pleading that “offers labels and
conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
complaint does not comply with the standards of Rule 8. As
set forth above, plaintiff's allegations contain a
laundry list of defendants but fails to identify how each
particular defendant is liable for each of the alleged
constitutional violations. The court is not required to
ferret through plaintiff's allegations and all of the
attached documents in search of viable claims,
Independent Towers of Wash. v. Wash., 350 F.3d 925,
929 (9th Cir. 2003), and plaintiff's failure to plainly
and succinctly provide each defendant with fair notice of the
bases for his allegations violates Rule 8. See Cafasso v.
Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th
Cir. 2011); see also American Ass'n of Naturopathic
Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1107-08 (9th Cir.
2000) (“[A] pro se litigant is not excused from knowing
the most basic pleading requirements.”). Merely
attaching hundreds of pages of documents, without specific
allegations demonstrating how those documents support his
claims, is not sufficient.
the Complaint is subject to dismissal under Rule 8. However,
the court will grant plaintiff leave to amend.
plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint,
plaintiff must demonstrate how the conditions complained of
have resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's federal
constitutional or statutory rights. See Ellis v.
Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). Also, the second
amended 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). Furthermore, vague and conclusory allegations of
official participation in civil rights violations are not
sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
268 (9th Cir. 1982).
addition, plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer
to a prior pleading in order to make plaintiff's second
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 second amended complaint, the original
pleading no longer serves any function in the case.
Therefore, in a second amended complaint, as in an original
complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant
must be sufficiently alleged.
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's first amended complaint is dismissed;
2. Defendants' motion for screening (ECF No. 14) is