Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Ramirez v. Muinoz

United States District Court, E.D. California

July 11, 2019

ALFONSO BOBBY CANTU RAMIREZ, Plaintiff,
v.
HOPE MUINOZ, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         By order filed April 24, 2019, the undersigned screened the first amended complaint and dismissed it with leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 22.)

         I. Second Amended Complaint

         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 “frivolous, malicious, or 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).

         Plaintiff alleges that defendants Marlaina Deyroncouy and Leticia Mandragon violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. However, the complaint does not make any allegations against either defendant and instead states that plaintiff “will address all of these lack of medical care on a discovery at a later date.” (ECF No. 22 at 5.)

         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, 371, 376 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Accordingly, because plaintiff has failed to allege any specific actions by either defendant, he has not stated any claims for relief and the second amended complaint will be dismissed. Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to amend the complaint.

         II. Leave to Amend

         If plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint, he must demonstrate how the conditions about which he complains resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 370-71 (1976). Also, the complaint must allege in specific terms how each named defendant is involved. Arnold v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 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. Id.; Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Furthermore, “[v]ague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient.” Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted).

         Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make his 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. Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967) (citations omitted), overruled in part by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend do not have to be re-pled in subsequent amended complaint to preserve appeal). Once plaintiff files a third amended complaint, any previous complaints 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.

         III. Plain Language Summary of this Order for a Pro Se Litigant

         The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend because you have not alleged any facts against the defendants. You will get one last chance to amend the complaint. You must explain what each person did or did not do that you believe violated your rights.

         If you choose to amend your complaint, the third amended complaint must include all of the claims you want to make because the court will not look at the claims or information in your previous complaints Any claims and information not in the third amended complaint will not be considered.

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

1. Plaintiffs second amended complaint is dismissed with ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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