United States District Court, E.D. California
M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court
is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1).
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or
portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2)
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or
(3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2).
Moreover, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that
complaints contain a “. . . short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This means that claims
must be stated simply, concisely, and directly. See
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996)
(referring to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1)). These rules are
satisfied if the complaint gives the defendant fair notice of
the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it
rests. See Kimes v. Stone, 84 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th
Cir. 1996). Because plaintiff must allege with at least some
degree of particularity overt acts by specific defendants
which support the claims, vague and conclusory allegations
fail to satisfy this standard. Additionally, it is impossible
for the court to conduct the screening required by law when
the allegations are vague and conclusory.
case, plaintiff names the following as defendants: the
California Medical Facility, the California Health Care
Facility, and Salinas Valley State Prison. All named
defendants are prisons in California. The Eleventh Amendment
prohibits federal courts from hearing suits brought against a
state both by its own citizens, as well as by citizens of
other states. See Brooks v. Sulphur Springs Valley Elec.
Coop., 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 1991). This
prohibition extends to suits against states themselves, and
to suits against state agencies. See Lucas v. Dep't
of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam);
Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).
A state's agency responsible for incarceration and
correction of prisoners is a state agency for purposes of the
Eleventh Amendment. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S.
781, 782 (1978) (per curiam); Hale v. Arizona, 993
F.2d 1387, 1398-99 (9th cir. 1993) (en banc). Given that
plaintiff has named only immune defendants, the complaint
will be dismissed.
it is possible that the deficiencies identified in this order
may be cured by amending the complaint, plaintiff is entitled
to leave to amend prior to dismissal of the entire action.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2000) (en banc). Plaintiff is informed that, as a
general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, following dismissal with leave to
amend, all claims alleged in the original complaint which are
not alleged in the amended complaint are waived. See King
v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Therefore,
if plaintiff amends the complaint, the court cannot refer to
the prior pleading in order to make plaintiffs amended
complaint complete. See Local Rule 220. An amended
complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any
prior pleading. See id.
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). The
complaint must allege in specific terms how each named
defendant is involved, and must set forth some affirmative
link or connection between each defendant's actions and
the claimed deprivation. See May v. Enomoto, 633
F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588
F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978).
plaintiff is warned that failure to file an amended complaint
within the time provided in this order may be grounds for
dismissal of this action. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at
1260-61; see also Local Rule 110. Plaintiff is also
warned that a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8
may, in the court's discretion, be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Nevijel v. North
Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs complaint is dismissed with leave to amend; and
2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint within 30
days of the date of ...