United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING IFP AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Request for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court
directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and
forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee
as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).
Screening Requirement and Standards
courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in
which prisoners seek redress from a governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must identify cognizable claims or
dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if
the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ” or
“seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” Id. § 1915A(b).
se plaintiff, like other litigants, must satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 8(a)(2) “requires a complaint to
include 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 Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554, 562-563 (2007) (citing
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)). While the
complaint must comply with the “short and plaint
statement” requirements of Rule 8, its allegations must
also include the specificity required by Twombly and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim a complaint must
contain more than “naked assertions, ”
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-557. In other words,
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements do not
suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
a claim upon which the court can grant relief must have
facial plausibility. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
When considering whether a complaint states a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the court must accept the
allegations as true, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007), and construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v. Rhodes,
416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
noted, plaintiff has filed a complaint along with supplements
to the complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10. The original
complaint includes claims one through eleven. ECF No. 1. The
first supplement purports to add claims twelve through
twenty-two. ECF No. 8. The second supplement purports to add
claims twenty-three through twenty-seven, along with numerous
exhibits. ECF No. 9. The third supplement purports to add
claims twenty-eight through thirty-three with even more
exhibits. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff may not, however, supplement
his complaint in a piecemeal fashion by filing separate
documents that are intended to be read together as a single
complaint. If plaintiff wishes to add, omit, or correct
information in the operative complaint, he must file an
amended or supplemental complaint that is complete within
itself. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220; Forsyth v.
Humana, 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (the
“‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the
latter being treated thereafter as nonexistent.'”)
(quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.
1967)). Plaintiff's complaint and supplement thereto are
therefore dismissed with leave to amend in accordance with
the requirements set forth in this order.
plaintiff is allowed to amend or supplement his complaint, he
must write or type the amended complaint so that it is
complete in itself without reference to any earlier filed
complaint. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. That is, plaintiff must
file a single amended complaint that includes all information
relevant to his claim(s).
amended complaint shall clearly set forth the claims and
allegations against each defendant, and must identify as a
defendant only persons who personally participated in a
substantial way in depriving plaintiff of a federal
constitutional right. Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d
740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978) (a person subjects another to the
deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act,
participates in another's act or omits to perform an act
he is legally required to do that causes the alleged
deprivation). Any amended complaint must also contain a
caption including the names of all defendants. Fed.R.Civ.P.
state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must
allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated,
and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person
acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). An individual defendant is not liable
on a civil rights claim unless the facts establish the
defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional
deprivation or a causal connection between the
defendant's wrongful conduct and the alleged
constitutional deprivation. See Hansen v. Black, 885
F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 1989); Johnson v. Duffy, 588
F.2d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff may not sue any
official on the theory that the official is liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of his or her subordinates.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Because