United States District Court, E.D. California
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this
court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
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. §
is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221,
1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a
claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably
meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are
clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. The
critical inquiry is whether a constitutional claim, however
inartfully pleaded, has an arguable legal and factual basis.
See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.
1989); Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1227.
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). In other words, “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Furthermore, a claim upon which the court can grant relief
has 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, 93-94 (2007), and construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff, see Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
Factual and Procedural History
court screened plaintiff's first amended complaint and
dismissed it with leave to amend on March 21, 2019 because
the challenges to his disciplinary conviction were barred by
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). ECF No. 11.
In this same order, plaintiff was cautioned that an amended
complaint must be complete in itself without reference to any
additional pleading. ECF No. 11 at 5 (citing Local Rule 220).
an extension of time, plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on April 11, 2019. ECF No. 17. Since that date,
plaintiff has filed seven additional pleadings which he
captions as “Supplement[s]” to his second amended
complaint. ECF Nos. 20-23, 25-27.
court is unable to screen plaintiff's second amended
complaint due to the number of subsequent filings by
plaintiff in which he seeks to add claims or otherwise amend
his pending complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff's second
amended complaint will be dismissed and plaintiff will be
granted one last opportunity to file a single amended
complaint that lists all claims and defendants which
plaintiff wishes to pursue. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
15(a)(2). Plaintiff is further advised against supplementing
any third amended complaint with additional
“notices” or “supplements” unless he
files a formal motion asking to do so, and the court grants
his motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P 15(d). The court will
strike any “supplements” filed in violation of
this court order.
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).
Also, in his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege in
specific terms how each named defendant is involved. 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). Furthermore,
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).
plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior
pleading in order to make plaintiff's 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. ...