(PC) Mason v. Lewis et al, No. 2:2008cv02604 - Document 21 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/1/09 ORDERING that 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are VACATED; Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED with 30 days to file an amended complaint; Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the courts form complaint for a § 1983 action.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Mason v. Lewis et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEMARC M. MASON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. CIV S-08-2604 JAM DAD P J. LEWIS, et al., 14 15 16 Defendant. ORDER / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 17 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 6, 2009, the court filed findings and recommendations 18 recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to state a cognizable claim. 19 Plaintiff has filed objections to those findings and recommendations, contending that if he were 20 granted leave to amend, he could allege additional facts in support of an Eighth Amendment 21 claim. Therefore, the court will vacate the findings and recommendations and provide plaintiff 22 with the opportunity to file an amended complaint. 23 Plaintiff is advised that “[n]ot every governmental action affecting the interests or 24 well-being of a prisoner is subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny, however.” Whitley v. Albers, 25 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986). It is “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” that constitutes cruel 26 and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. Id.; see also Ingraham v. Wright, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 430 U.S. 651, 670 (1977); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06 (1976). “It is obduracy and 2 wantonness, not inadvertence or error in good faith, that characterize the conduct prohibited by 3 the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 319. 4 “[A] prison official violates the Eighth Amendment only when two requirements 5 are met.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “First, the deprivation alleged must be, 6 objectively, ‘sufficiently serious.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). 7 The second requirement, flowing from the principle that only the unnecessary and wanton 8 infliction of pain implicates the Eighth Amendment, is a subjective one; “[t]o violate the Cruel 9 and Unusual Punishments Clause, a prison official must have had a ‘sufficiently culpable state of 10 mind.’” Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 297). That state of mind is one of deliberate 11 indifference to the inmate’s health or safety. Id. (quoting Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03.) 12 In his amended complaint, plaintiff must allege facts demonstrating how the 13 conditions complained of resulted in a deprivation of his federal constitutional or statutory rights. 14 See Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1980). The amended complaint must allege in 15 specific terms how each named defendant was involved in the deprivation of plaintiff’s rights. 16 There can be no liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless there is some affirmative link or 17 connection between a defendant’s actions and the claimed deprivation. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 18 U.S. 362 (1976); May v. Enomoto, 633 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir. 1980); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 19 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1978). Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil 20 rights violations are not sufficient. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 21 Plaintiff is also informed that the court cannot refer to a prior pleading in order to 22 make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires that an amended 23 complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is because, as a 24 general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 25 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967). Once plaintiff files an amended complaint, the original pleading no 26 ///// 2 1 longer serves any function in the case. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original 2 complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently alleged. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations, filed on October 6, 2009 (Doc. No. 15), 5 are vacated; 6 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed; 7 3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file an 8 amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal 9 Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the 10 docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Amended Complaint”; plaintiff must 11 use the form complaint provided by the court and answer each question; failure to file an 12 amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 13 be dismissed without prejudice; and 14 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide plaintiff with the court’s form 15 complaint for a § 1983 action. 16 DATED: December 1, 2009. 17 18 19 DAD:4 mas2604.vac 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.
