United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and plaintiff has
consented to have all proceedings before a United States
has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to
proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for
this action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By
separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency
to collect twenty percent of the preceding month's income
credited to plaintiff's prison trust account and forward
it to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
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. §
court has conducted the required screening and finds that
plaintiff may proceed on a claim for denial of medical care
arising under the Eighth Amendment and a claim arising under
the First Amendment based upon retaliation for protected
activity against defendant Uddin. With respect to defendant
Felder, however, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
point, plaintiff has two options: 1) he may proceed on his
claims described above against defendant Uddin; or 2) attempt
to cure the deficiencies in his complaint with respect to his
claims against defendant Felder.
deciding whether to file an amended complaint, plaintiff
should consider the following:
order to 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.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555-557 (2007).
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). 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).
Section 1983 does not recognize respondeat superior
liability. Monell v. Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 436
U.S. 658, 691 (1978). Accordingly, a supervisor may not be
held liable merely because a subordinate violated the
plaintiff's constitutional rights. Id.
plaintiff is informed that if he elects to amend the court
cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to make the 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 an amended complaint, the original pleading
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
accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis