Jimmy Donald Begaye, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Charles L. Ryan; M.o. Savage, Deputy Warden; Green, Lt.;george Herman, Deputy Warden, Defendants-appellees, 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 70 F.3d 1277 (9th Cir. 1995) Submitted Nov. 20, 1995. *Decided Nov. 24, 1995

Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Jimmy Donald Begaye, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging denial of his right of access to the courts in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's summary judgment de novo, see McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1059 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.

Begaye contends he was denied meaningful access to the courts because prison officials lost a box of his legal materials while he was in administrative segregation. This contention lacks merit.

When a party files an amended complaint, " [t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); accord Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 321 (1992).

In his original complaint, filed on December 9, 1991, Begaye named as defendants Charles Ryan, M.O. Savage, Lt. Green and George Herman. In his amended complaint, filed on May 10, 1994, Begaye named Charles Ryan as the only defendant. Because Begaye failed to name all of the original defendants in his amended complaint, the district court properly found that Ryan was the only defendant in this action. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1546.

Here, Begaye failed to establish that defendant Ryan participated in the alleged violation, or that he had any involvement in the incident other than in a supervisory capacity. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Ryan. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989) ("liability under section 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by the defendant.").

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.