United States District Court, E.D. California
ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has
filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 302.
this court for review are plaintiff's first amended
complaint (“FAC”) and four supplements.
See ECF Nos. 11-15. For the reasons stated below,
the court will provide plaintiff with a second opportunity to
amend his complaint. Plaintiff will be directed to
incorporate the relevant information in the supplements into
his second amended complaint (“SAC”) so that all
allegations are contained in a single document.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
original complaint was filed on June 27, 2019. ECF No. 1. On
July 31, 2019, the court screened the pleading and granted
plaintiff leave to amend. See generally ECF No. 8.
August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed the instant FAC. ECF No. 11.
Thereafter, on November 4, 2019, plaintiff filed three
separate and unsolicited “supplements” to the
FAC. See ECF Nos. 12, 13, 14. Plaintiff filed a
fourth unsolicited supplement on November 14, 2019. ECF No.
the disjointed nature of the FAC, the collective length of
plaintiff's supplements, and plaintiff's obvious
desire that the content of the supplements be considered, the
court will not screen the FAC at this time. Instead,
plaintiff will be given the opportunity to file a single
document that contains all pertinent information. To assist
plaintiff in preparing a Second Amended Complaint, the court
provides the following information.
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FAC is rambling and unfocused. The claims asserted are
similar to those in the original June 2019 complaint, and
plaintiff also identifies incidents that have occurred since
he filed the original complaint. Compare ECF No. 1,
with ECF No. 11. The FAC also names some new
defendants and does not include others mentioned in the
original complaint. Compare ECF No. 1 at 1-3,
with ECF No. 11 at 1-2.
core of the FAC is the assertion that: (1) defendants
violated plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment
when they retaliated against him for providing testimony to
the Office of the Inspector General in a case of another
inmate, and/or (2) that defendants violated plaintiff's
First Amendment rights when they retaliated against him for
filing grievances against them, or, as plaintiff states it,
“writing them up.” See generally ECF No.
11 at 3. Whether plaintiff is attempting to raise the former
claim, the latter, or both is unclear.
alleges that defendants' collective “efforts are
conspiritory [sic] and offend the constitution by threatening
to inhibit the excercise [sic] of [plaintiff's] protected
right.” Id. at 6 (brackets added). He asks for
$25, 000.00 in compensatory damages and $7, 500.00 in
punitive damages. Id. at 7-8.
four supplements plaintiff has filed since he filed his FAC,
he raises additional assertions of ethical deficiency,
prejudice, and misconduct on the part of prison officials.
See generally ECF Nos. 12-14. He also provides
additional facts related to his claim against defendant
Nichols. See ECF No. 15. Collectively, the four